Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros fori2c_msg initialization

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
> > Am 07.10.2012 18:44, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> >> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:
> >>> Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> >>>> Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
> >>>> struct i2c_msg x =
> >>>> - {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = I2C_M_RD}
> >>>> + I2C_MSG_READ(a,b,c)
[]
> >>>> struct i2c_msg x =
> >>>> - {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = 0}
> >>>> + I2C_MSG_WRITE(a,b,c)
[]
> > do you really thing that a macro is appropriate here ? I feel uneasy about it
> > but i can not offer an other solution.

I think the macros are fine.

> 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.

I think the consistency is better if all the references are done
as arrays, even for single entry arrays.

It's all quibbling in any case.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/