PATCH: Replace _XXX with XXX_P

[Phil Blundell]

On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 08:58 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> -  /* `open (...)' would get expanded by an the open(2) syscall macro.  */
> -  stream = (*_open) (nbfd, open_closure);
> +  /* `open_p (...)' would get expanded by an the open(2) syscall macro.  */
> +  stream = (*open_p) (nbfd, open_closure);

Is the new text of that comment actually correct?  It seems a bit
surprising that "open_p (...)" would be expanded by the open(2) syscall
macro.

p.