On 09/30/2014 10:28 AM, Steve Beattie wrote: > 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). >
What do people think about using just the bare word? unused Since the macro is not being exposed by a public header file the potential set of namespace collisions is limited to within apparmor it self, and we can deal with that. -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
