On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:27 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:57 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > > > struct attribute_group {
> > > > const char *name;
> > > > + int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *, int);
> > >
> > > Are you sure that you want to return an array index here, instead of the
> > > actual attribute? Like:
> >
> > Actually, it returns a true/false value indicating whether the given
> > attribute should be displayed.
>
> It isn't about the return value of the function, that's fine. You call
> back with the index number (int) of the array of attributes, instead of
> passing the attribute pointer (struct attribute *attr) back to ask the
> device for the attribute to create.
For bitmaps, the int is what we will want. I can add both to the
prototype if that will make you happy? so people searching on struct
attribute and not relying on the array construction order can use the
code as well.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
