[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1405702472.30262.1.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:54:32 -0700
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Benoit Taine <benoit.taine@...6.fr>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ath5k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net, linux-acenic@...site.dk,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-hippi@...site.dk,
industrypack-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
ath9k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net, wil6210@....qualcomm.com,
linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, users@...x00.serialmonkey.com,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/25] Replace DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro use
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:26:47PM +0200, Benoit Taine wrote:
> > > We should prefer `const struct pci_device_id` over
> > > `DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE` to meet kernel coding style guidelines.
> > > This issue was reported by checkpatch.
> >
> > Honestly, I prefer the macro -- it stands-out more. Maybe the style
> > guidelines and/or checkpatch should change instead?
>
> The macro is horrid, no other bus has this type of thing just to save a
> few characters in typing
OK, so this is the macro:
#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \
const struct pci_device_id _table[]
Could you explain what's so horrible?
The reason it's useful today is that people forget the const (and
sometimes the [] making it a true table instead of a pointer). If you
use the DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro, the compile breaks if you use it
wrongly (good) and you automatically get the correct annotations.
> , so why should PCI be "special" in this regard
> anymore?
I think the PCI usage dwarfs most other bus types now, so you could turn
the question around. However, I don't think majority voting is a good
guide to best practise; lets debate the merits for their own sake.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists