On Thursday 05 February 2015 12:08:29 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:32:39PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2015 5:13 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I know typedef's are frowned upon, but how bad is the following option? > > > > typedef void* mbox_data_info > > > > int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, mbox_data_info > > data); > > > > > > I don't see how that would help. > > > > > If it's abuse because the argument is a void*... What if we called it > > mbox_data_info? To say platforms are free to pass data as a pointer or a > > value I misunderstood then, I thought you were trying to enforce that people use a proper pointer. > Using a typedef really doesn't change anything. If you read the kernel > coding style, you'll realise that typedefs are a reason to reject > patches - especially to use them in the way you are proposing. Agreed, using a typedef here would add an extra problem rather than solve the one we already have. > Try the solution I suggested (which I notice was seemingly totally > ignored.) As I understood, Jassi doesn't even have this problem, because his driver uses a synchronous call rather than an asynchronous one and he can just pass the data on the stack. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
