[apparmor] [patch] C tools: rename __unused macro

[John Johansen]

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 <seth.arnold at canonical.com>
> 
> 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.