From: Linus Torvalds > Sent: 25 February 2024 17:14 > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 08:53, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The expansions of min() and max() contain statement expressions so are > > not valid for static intialisers. > > min_const() and max_const() are expressions so can be used for static > > initialisers. > > I hate the name. Picking name is always hard... > Naming shouldn't be about an implementation detail, particularly not > an esoteric one like the "C constant expression" rule. That can be > useful for some internal helper functions or macros, but not for > something that random people are supposed to USE. > > Telling some random developer that inside an array size declaration or > a static initializer you need to use "max_const()" because it needs to > syntactically be a constant expression, and our regular "max()" > function isn't that, is just *horrid*. > > No, please just use the traditional C model of just using ALL CAPS for > macro names that don't act like a function. > > Yes, yes, that may end up requiring getting rid of some current users of > > #define MIN(a,b) ((a)<(b) ? (a):(b)) > > but dammit, we don't actually have _that_ many of them, and why should > we have random drivers doing that anyway? I'll have a look at what is there. It might take a three part patch though. Unless you apply it as a tree-wide patch? One option is to add as max_const(), then change any existing MAX() to be max() or max_const() and then finally rename to MAX()? David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
