Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:58:27 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 21:20 +0300, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Going off at a tangent (or tangle, rather), why do we need DECLARE_FOO() > macros at all? They > > - do not look like C variable declarations, hide variable type, and > hence are confusing, > > - contrary to their naming actually _define_ rather than _declare_ an > object. > > In most cases > > type var = INIT_FOO; > > is much better (more readable and easier to understand) than > > DECLARE_FOO(var); /* what is the type of var? */ > > In the cases where initializer needs an address of object being > initialized > > type var = INIT_FOO(var); > > can be used.
That's just error prone. In the RT patch we had several bugs caused by cut and paste errors like:
type foo = INIT_TYPE(foo); type bar = INIT_TYPE(foo);
These are not always easy to find.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |