linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for i2c

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1349645970.15802.12.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:39:30 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	walter harms <wharms@....de>, Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, rmallon@...il.com,
	shubhrajyoti@...com, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for
 i2c_msg initialization

On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 20:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than
> >> the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for
> >> write.  A separate question is whether an array of one element is useful,
> >> or whether one should systematically use & on a simple variable of the
> >> structure type.  I'm open to suggestions about either point.
> >
> > I think the macro naming is not great.
> >
> > Maybe add DEFINE_/DECLARE_/_INIT or something other than an action
> > name type to the macro names.
> 
> DEFINE and DECLARE usually have a declared variable as an argument, which 
> is not the case here.
> 
> These macros are like the macros PCI_DEVICE and PCI_DEVICE_CLASS.

I understand that.

> Are READ and WRITE the action names?  They are really the important 
> information in this case.

Yes, most (all?) uses of _READ and _WRITE macros actually
perform some I/O.

> > I think the consistency is better if all the references are done
> > as arrays, even for single entry arrays.
> 
> Is it worth creating arrays where &msg is used?  Or would it be better to 
> leave that aspect as it is?

Reasonable arguments can be made either way.


--
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/