On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 17:47 -0600, Will Drewry wrote:

quoted

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).

You mean like... struct task_struct?

;-)

-- Steve