[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
    Followup to:  <199808290218.MAA28352@vindaloo.atnf.CSIRO.AU>
    By author: Richard Gooch <>
    In newsgroup:
    > Before I get into the part about the flames, I have a suggestion: how
    > about we start using the GCC intialiser extensions? In other words, if
    > I have a "xyz" driver, I do this:
    > struct file_operations xyz_fops = {
    > open:xyz_open,
    > read:xyz_read,
    > write:xyz_write,
    > };
    > if I only implement those 3 methods. This is insensitive to members
    > being moved around and it seems to me that it solves the problem which
    > Doug explained which is if you don't carefully look at the structure
    > declaration beforehand, you're stuffed.
    > Is this the way you'd like things to be done? This appears to be quite
    > maintainable.
    > If so, it seems to me it would make sense to change all the drivers
    > over to this method. Would you accept a patch that does this?

    IMNSHO, the whole usage of NULL silly. Is there a good reason why
    we're not simply a pointer pointing to a routine implementing the
    default action? (Does nothing if empty?) That way we wouldn't have
    to have a null pointer check on every call...

    PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
    See for web page and full PGP public key
    I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see
    "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.026 / U:0.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site