On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:18:59 +0000, Alan Chandler
<alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am "code reading" the ide-cd module to try and understand how its working
> and to debug the issues I have with my cd-writer not working
>
> I have a situation in which two routines are declared in a similar manner - I
> am not including the exact code or the right names, but an example is thus:
>
> cdrom_start_packet_command ( ......., ide_handler_t *handler)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> but the calling sequences of these routine is different
>
> one call is
>
> cdrom_start_packet_command( ...., &cdrom_seek_intr);
>
> where cdrom_seek_intr is declared as a function
>
> static ide_startstop_t cdrom_seek_intr(...)
> {
> }
>
> and the other is
>
> cdrom_start_packet_command(....., cdrom_continuation);
>
> where cdrom_continution is defined in a similar manner, this
>
> static ide_startstop_t cdrom_continuation(....)
> {
> }
>
> What difference does the subtle '&' make (or the lack of it).
>
> --
> Alan Chandler
> alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
> then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
Because it is a function pointer.
http://www.function-pointer.org/
--
Manish Regmi
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
