On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:24:39PM -0600, Will Drewry wrote:

quoted

Replaces the seccomp_t typedef with seccomp_struct to match modern
kernel style.

Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
---
 include/linux/sched.h   |    2 +-
 include/linux/seccomp.h |   10 ++++++----
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 4032ec1..288b5cb 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h

@@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@ struct task_struct {

      uid_t loginuid;
      unsigned int sessionid;
 #endif
-     seccomp_t seccomp;
+     struct seccomp_struct seccomp;

Isn't 'struct seccomp_struct' a bit redundant?

How about a simple 'struct seccomp' instead?

Works for me - I can't recall why that seemed to make sense (other
than the user of similar redundant names elsewhere).

That is, if this is even needed...

I'd like to think it is :)

thanks!
will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html