linux-kernel - Re: [patch] use C99 initialisers for PCI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200704151532.39682.doomster@knuut.de>
Date:	Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:32:38 +0200
From:	Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster@...ut.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] use C99 initialisers for PCI_VDEVICE()

On Sunday 15 April 2007 14:53, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> > (Note: CC me please, I'm not subscribed.)
[...]
> > -#define PCI_VDEVICE(vendor, device)            \
> > -       PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vendor, (device),       \
> > -       PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0
> > +#define PCI_VDEVICE(vend, dev)         \
> > +       .vendor=PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vend, .device=(dev),    \
> > +       .subvendor=PCI_ANY_ID, .subdevice=PCI_ANY_ID,   \
> > +       .class=0, .class_mask=0
>
> NAK.  C99 initializers were intentionally avoided.  Look at the usage of
> this macro.

I'm aware of the uses and documentation of this, I was just under the 
impression that C99 initialisers were the agreed way to go because of their 
resistance against reording of fields. Of course, if that assumption is 
wrong, this patch is moot anyway.

Am I generally wrong or is this case an intentional exception?

Uli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/