[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41d9dc0f-2e65-075f-9b57-740f31081860@metafoo.de>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 11:21:52 +0200
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc: Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org, knaack.h@....de,
pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad7768-1: Fix the right interrupt
interfacecalls
On 5/12/21 10:39 AM, tangbin wrote:
> Hi Lars-Peter:
>
> Thanks for you reply!
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch. Aren't those two expressions equivalent? Are
>> you seeing an issue with the current code? If so can you include that
>> in the commit message?
>>
>> - Lars
>>
>>
> When submitting this patch, I actually thought about it for a
> while, but finally decided to submit it, my reason is as follows:
>
> In numerical data of address, &ad7768_interrupt is equal to
> ad7768_interrupt, and the compilation can pass. But I think they are
> not the same, ad7768_interrupt is the first
>
> address of the function, and its type is irqreturn_t,
> &ad7768_interrupt represents the address of an object that points to
> the function ad7768_interrupt().
>
> So I think they are not the same, For previous experience with
> devm_request_irq(), I send this patch. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry to
> bother you.
>
Have a look at
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6893285/why-do-function-pointer-definitions-work-with-any-number-of-ampersands-or-as
for some background on this.
You can also easily verify that they are the same with a simple test program
static void foo(void) {}
int main(void) {
printf("%p %p %d\n", foo, &foo, foo == &foo);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists