[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:0.071 / U:1.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site