Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names

Sam Ravnborg dixit:

quoted

Guillem Jover wrote:

quoted

quoted

On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the
equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the

[…]

^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to
name the unused/padding members "__unused".

Considering that glibc has seen the light¹ now too, can we please
do something about these now? The BSD tools (not just NetBSD®) have
been using this for far longer after all…


Currently (git pull --ff torvalds master), we have:

• 2 occurrences of files *inside* the Linux kernel defining __unused
  to² __attribute__((unused)) themselves

• 68 struct members and function arguments called __unused

So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more
sensible would be fine.

I think __unused0 is okay as it matches current __unused[0-9] in
use by other parts of the Linux kernel – although glibc now uses
__glibc_reserved[0-9], I think this doesn’t look like the Linux
kernel should use it ☻☺


① http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/36439

② I’ve recently come to the belief that this should be
  __attribute__((__unused__)) in all cases, i.e. all those
  attribute namings need double underscores before and after,
  as some software likes to #define printf to something else,
  lighttpd does #define bounded something else, so there’s
  probably software out there containing #define unused foo.