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 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
