On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 04:00:12PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:45:46PM -0700, Steve Beattie wrote: > > Not at all. Honestly, my preferences are: > > > > 1) __unused — simple, clear, straightforward annotation. Alas, > > conflicts with a symbol in older glibcs and with convention of __ > > prefixed symbols being system synbols. I wish gcc just went ahead > > and defined this. > > > > 2) __aa_unused — nearly as simple as __unused; the underscores > > indicate specialness, the __aa_ prefix makes it less likely to > > conflict with any actual system symbol name, despite intruding on > > the system symbol convention. NACK'ed by Christian, so would need > > at least one more ACK to be acceptable. (_aa_unused has the same > > problem, standards-wise,) > > Sorry Christian. :) > > __aa_unused please. > > Acked-by: Seth Arnold <[email protected]>
Right, I have your ack, which counter balances Christian's nack. But I'd need one more to commit (I have mine and yours, if I'm understanding http://wiki.apparmor.net/index.php/CommitPolicy correctly). -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
