Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:50:48 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: small IDE cleanup: void * should not be used unless neccessary |
| |
Hi!
> > > > This is really easy, please apply. (It will allow me to kill few casts > > > > in future). > > > > Pavel > > > > > > > > --- linux/include/linux/ide.h Mon Feb 11 21:15:04 2002 > > > > +++ linux-dm/include/linux/ide.h Mon Feb 11 22:36:12 2002 > > > > @@ -529,7 +531,7 @@ > > > > > > > > typedef struct hwif_s { > > > > struct hwif_s *next; /* for linked-list in ide_hwgroup_t */ > > > > - void *hwgroup; /* actually (ide_hwgroup_t *) */ > > > > + struct hwgroup_s *hwgroup; /* actually (ide_hwgroup_t *) */ > > > > ide_ioreg_t io_ports[IDE_NR_PORTS]; /* task file registers */ > > > > hw_regs_t hw; /* Hardware info */ > > > > ide_drive_t drives[MAX_DRIVES]; /* drive info */ > > > > > > Now I'm confused about the comment on the end of the line. > > > > > > Should the comment be changed, or should the type be ide_hwgroup_t > > > instead of struct hwgroup_s? > > > > struct hwgroup_s == ide_hwgroup_t. That's infection by hungarian > > notation, and yes it would be nice to clean it up. For now, I'm > > killing worst stuff. > > Pavel > > I know they're functionally equivalent, but so was the original void > *. :)
Well, void * hides real errors.
> Just an "as long as you're touching this line anyway, why leave the old > comment?" thing. A minor, in-passing nit at best...
ide_hwgroup_t is used in 90% of rest of code, so I thought I better leave it there. Pavel -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |