Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:48:48PM +0100, Michael Riesch wrote:
> On 11/28/22 14:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:18:04PM +0100, Gerald Loacker wrote:
> >> Am 25.11.2022 um 12:01 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:

...

> > It's a rule to use _t for typedef:s in the kernel. That's why
> > I suggested to leave struct definition and only typedef the same structures
> > (existing) to new names (if needed).
> 
> Andy, excuse our ignorance but we are not sure how this typedef approach
> is supposed to look like...
> 
> >> or
> > 
> >> 	typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
> 
> ... because
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> struct iio_val_int_plus_micro {
> 	int integer;
> 	int micro;
> };
> 
> typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
> 
> int main()
> {
>   struct iio_val_int_plus_micro a = { .integer = 100, .micro = 10, };
>   struct iio_val_int_plus_micro_db b = { .integer = 20, .micro = 10, };
>   return 0;
> }
> 
> won't compile.

I see. Thanks for pointing this out.

Then the question is why do we need the two same structures with different
names?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux