Am 02.12.2012 12:53, schrieb Willy Tarreau: > Hi Dan, > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 02:22:13PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:19:06AM +0100, walter harms wrote: >>>> if (press_str[0]) >>>> keypad_send_key(press_str, >>>> - sizeof(press_str)); >>>> + sizeof(input->u.kbd.press_str)); >>>> } >>> yep, this looks like the original intention. >>> NTL i would like to question the use of press_str and friends. >>> Moving the if (press_str[0]) into keypad_send_key() seems >>> more sensible. >>> >>> just my two cents, >>> >> >> Greg had already applied my patch by the you sent this email. >> >> What you're saying sounds like it should be a good cleanup, but when >> I actually look at it, the callers still have to test repeat_str[0] >> so it's not as useful as one would hope. >> >> Really this stuff is really confusing. I'm not sure what is >> actually stored in press_str. Is it a pointer or just chars? If >> it's a pointer then why are we only checking the first bit instead >> of checking the pointer? I think it's characters but why is it >> declared as "char press_str[sizeof(void *) + sizeof(int)];"? > > It's just chars. It was declared this way so that it did not > inflate the union it's declared in. This is totally ugly and > should be cleaned. But it dates 13 years ago when we were trying > to shrink everything to have full-featured kernels in less than > 500kB to boot from floppies... > It is not a bad think to save space. The question is about readability. re, wh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
