Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +
> +/*
> + * The mru list_head is supposed to be initialized using
> + * the LIST_HEAD macro, assigning prev/next to itself.
> + * However this doesn't work in this case as some compilers dislike
> + * that macro on member variables. Use NULL instead as that is defined
> + * and accepted, deferring the real init to prepare_packed_git_mru(). */
> +#define __MRU_INIT { NULL, NULL }
> +#define RAW_OBJECT_STORE_INIT { NULL, NULL, __MRU_INIT, NULL, NULL }
I do not think it has to be this way to abuse two NULLs, if you
faithfully mimicked how LIST_HEAD() macro is constructed. The
reason why it does not try to introduce
struct list_head x = LIST_HEAD_INIT;
and instead, uses
LIST_HEAD(x);
is because of the need for self referral. If we learn from it, we
can do the same, i.e. instead of doing
struct raw_object_store x = RAW_OBJECT_STORE_INIT;
we can do
RAW_OBJECT_STORE(x);
that expands to
struct raw_object_store x = {
...
{ &x.packed_git_mru, &x.packed_git_mru },
...
};
no? Then we do not need such a lengthy comment that reads only like
an excuse ;-)
