From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu,  7 Jul 2005 18:06:42 -0600
From: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question
In-Reply-To: <b4fee4415ac8f189608cc1b7971c27c1@terzarima.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507071806160.4407@enigma.lanl.gov>
References: <b4fee4415ac8f189608cc1b7971c27c1@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 62e8fc3e-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025



On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Charles Forsyth wrote:

> i don't understand.  if it's in the portability interface, you say what
> arch_vcpu_info_t is, so why not typedef int arch_vcpu_info_t; and be
> done with it.  i don't see why it must be a struct in that context.

As I understand it, current Linux practice is to not use typedefs. So, 
that approach will not go.

ron