Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sysctl.c: Change a .proc_handler = proc_dointvec to &proc_dointvec, | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | | Date | Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:04:23 -0800 |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> * Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > * Am??rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 05:52:05PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >> > > >Seems to be a typo. >> > > Acked-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> >> > (Cc:-ed Eric who is running the sysctl tree these days) >> > Almost everywhere in the kernel we use the shorter version, so all of >> > sysctl.c should eventually change to that variant. >> >> It's closer to 50/50, but it's 1 vs 133 in that file. >> >> $ grep -Pr --include=*.[ch] '\.proc_handler\s*=\s*&\s*\w+' * | wc -l >> 339 >> >> $ grep -Pr --include=*.[ch] '\.proc_handler\s*=\s*[^&]\s*\w+' * | wc -l >> 432 > > I did not mean this specific initialization method of proc_handler, i > meant pointers to functions in general.
There was an argument put forward by Alexy (I think) a while ago. That argued for the form without the address of operator.
The reason being that without it you can do: #define proc_dointvec NULL
in a header when sysctl support it compiled out. Using address of you wind up with stub functions in sysctl.c to handle the case when sysctl is compiled out.
It isn't a strong case but since not using & is also shorter and as Ingo pointed out more common I think no & wins.
Eric
|  |