[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <op.vf5cd0ap7p4s8u@pikus>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:40:38 +0200
From: Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dries Van Puymbroeck <Dries.VanPuymbroeck@...imo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/3] USB: gadget: mass/file storage: set serial number
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:08:53 +0200, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, [utf-8] Michał Nazarewicz wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, [utf-8] Michal‚ Nazarewicz wrote:
>> >> 1/3: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/8/317
>> >> Adds serial to mass storage gadget and g_multi introducing
>> >> fsg_string_serial_fill() macro used by abovementioned
>> >> gadgets and file storage gadget.
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:06:32 +0200, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> > Ah, yes. My personal taste would be to write fsg_string_serial_fill_n
>> > as an inline routine instead of as a macro, and not try to make it
>> > separate from fsg_string_serial_fill.
>>
>> Not sure what you meant by "make it separate from fsg_string_serial_fill".
>
> I mean have a single function, called "fsg_string_serial_fill", instead
> of two separate macros called "fsg_string_serial_fill" and
> "fsg_string_serial_fill_n".
I wanted to keep fsg_string_serial_fill() as a macro so that it can
use ARRAY_SIZE() on the first argument to check the size. If there
was a single function it would have to explicitly take the length of
the destination array as an argument -- that's what the *_n() function
is for.
The rationale is that not having to use ARRAY_SIZE() is, well,
simpler. ;)
Basically, what you are proposing is to remove the
fsg_string_serial_fill() macro and leave only the *_n() changed to
an inline function and force all callers use sizeof/ARRAY_SIZE().
Am I getting that right? Personally, I'd leave things like they are
changing the *_n() to a function. What do you think?
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists