On 08/10/12 08:39, Joe Perches wrote: > 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. Well, they are describing an IO operation even if they don't perform it directly. What else would you call them? I think the macro names are fine as is. ~Ryan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
