On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 20:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than > >> the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for > >> write. A separate question is whether an array of one element is useful, > >> or whether one should systematically use & on a simple variable of the > >> structure type. I'm open to suggestions about either point. > > > > I think the macro naming is not great. > > > > Maybe add DEFINE_/DECLARE_/_INIT or something other than an action > > name type to the macro names. > > DEFINE and DECLARE usually have a declared variable as an argument, which > is not the case here. > > These macros are like the macros PCI_DEVICE and PCI_DEVICE_CLASS. I understand that. > Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important > information in this case. Yes, most (all?) uses of _READ and _WRITE macros actually perform some I/O. > > I think the consistency is better if all the references are done > > as arrays, even for single entry arrays. > > Is it worth creating arrays where &msg is used? Or would it be better to > leave that aspect as it is? Reasonable arguments can be made either way. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
