On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 5:59 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/10/22 2:33 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:44 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> + static struct attribute *attrs_##_group[] = { \
> >> + &dev_attr_0_##_group.attr, \
> >> + &dev_attr_1_##_group.attr, \
> >> + &dev_attr_2_##_group.attr, \
> >> + &dev_attr_3_##_group.attr, \
> >> + NULL \
(1)
> >> + }; \
> >> + static const struct attribute_group attr_group_##_group = { \
> >> + .name = _name, \
> >> + .is_visible = attr_is_visible_gpio_##_num, \
> >
> >> + .attrs = attrs_##_group \
> >
> > Keep a comma here.
> Is there any particular reason for it?
Yes, if it's not a terminator entry, like (1), the comma would help to
avoid unneeded churm in the future in case someone wants to add
another initialization member.
> If there is, I'll add commas to
> all the structures.
It depends if it is a terminator entry or not, so please check
carefully where to add and where not (the latter example is (1) where
comma is not needed and theoretically might add a confusion).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
