> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:29 +0800, Bian Naimeng wrote:
>
>> + [NLMPROC_NSM_NOTIFY] = {
>> + .pc_func = (svc_procfunc) nlmsvc_proc_sm_notify,
>> + .pc_decode = (kxdrproc_t) nlmsvc_decode_reboot,
>> + .pc_encode = (kxdrproc_t) nlmsvc_encode_void,
>> + .pc_release = NULL,
>> + .pc_argsize = sizeof(struct nlm_reboot),
>> + .pc_ressize = sizeof(struct nlm_void),
>> + .pc_xdrressize = 1,
>> + },
>> + NLMSVC_NONE_PROC,
>> + NLMSVC_NONE_PROC,
>> + NLMSVC_NONE_PROC,
>
> Hmm... Does the C standard really allow you to mix C99 initialisers and
> K&R initialisers in this manner?
>
In this point, i think C99 is compatible with K&R. If it just support K&R
but not C99, maybe " [subscript] = {}" should not work too.
And i have tested with gcc, it can work with -std=c99 or -ansi option.
And may i ask other questions.
Q: why we must initial these three procedures, is it in order to reply ok
to client?
But i have not finded that client will send these request.
In RFC1813, we defined NLMPROC_NSM_NOTIFY = 16 and NLMPROC_SHARE = 20,
but why not NLMPROC_SHARE = 17?
I try to find the reason, but failed. Would you answer my question or
give me some suggestions. Thanks very much.
Best Regard
Bian
> Cheers
> Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
