On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday, 2016-11-05 13:11:36 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 05.11.2016 um 02:33 schrieb Eric Engestrom:
>> > +typedef char drm_format_name_buf[32];
>>
>> Please don't use a typedef for this, just define the maximum size of
>> characters the function might write somewhere.
>>
>> See the kernel coding style as well:
>> > In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably
>> > be directly accessed should **never** be a typedef.
>>
>
> I would normally agree as I tend to hate typedefs ($DAYJOB {ab,mis}uses
> them way too much), and your way was what I wrote at first, but Rob Clark's
> typedef idea makes it much harder for someone to allocate a buffer of
> the wrong size, which IMO is good thing here.
IMHO I would make a small test program to verify this actually helps
the compiler catch problems. And if it does, I would stick with it.
The coding-style should be guidelines, not something that supersedes
common sense / practicality.
That is my $0.02 anyways.. if others vehemently disagree and want to
dogmatically stick to the coding-style guidelines, ok then. OTOH, if
this approach doesn't help the compiler catch issues, then it isn't
worth it.
BR,
-R
> I can rewrite the typedef out if you think it's better.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
