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

[Tyler Hicks]

On 2014-09-30 11:36:55, John Johansen wrote:
> 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.

I'm ok with using the bare word. I agree that we should not expose such
a macro publicly. 

Tyler
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/attachments/20140930/6a827b4d/attachment.pgp>