> linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx> [2005-01-16 14:09]:
2.6:
> static struct packet_type ip_packet_type = {
> .type = __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP),
> .func = ip_rcv,
> };
>
2.4:
> static struct packet_type ip_packet_type =
> {
> __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP),
> NULL, /* All devices */
> ip_rcv,
> (void*)1,
> NULL,
> };
> Why . is used in 2.6 series kernels and not in 2.4
> series?
>
the notion of struct-member names eases reading a lot, doesn't it?
I assume that previous C-compilers were not able to understand this
notion.
>
> Also other structure members are why not
> necessary to define in 2.6 kernel?
I do not know why there is '(void*)1' in 2.4. Besides that,
somewhere, presumable in news://comp.lang.c, I read that all
struct-members not set explicitely are initialized by zeros.
So, the 2.4 notion saves typing -- and is appropriate since the other
struct-members are explicitely initialized.
HTH.
wbr,
Lukas
--
Lukas Ruf | Wanna know anything about raw |
<http://www.lpr.ch> | IP? -> <http://www.rawip.org> |
eMail Style Guide: <http://www.rawip.org/style.html>|
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
