On 11/30/2012 09:25 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Arend van Spriel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

So what is the rationale here. During mainlining our drivers we had to
remove all uses of 'typedef struct foo foo_t;'. The Linux CodingStyle
(chapter 5 Typedefs) is spending a number of lines explaining why.

So is spinlock_t an exception to this rule simply because the kernel
uses spinlock_t all over the place.

Yes.

Let me provide a better explanation. In practice drivers should not be
creating their own typedefs given that generally the reasons to create
them do not exist for drivers. The kernel may provide their own though
for reasons explained in CodingStyle and in such cases the drivers
should use these supplied typedefs.

Ok. Fine by me. It just looked like a case of saying a and doing b.
Thanks for taking time giving the better explanation :-)

Gr. AvS