Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:29:05 +0900 | From | Hidetoshi Seto <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/10] IOCHK interface for I/O error handling/detecting |
| |
Hi Greg,
Thank you for giving me many useful advices!
Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:48:15PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > >>+void iochk_init(void) { ; } >>+ >>+void iochk_clear(iocookie *cookie, struct pci_dev *dev) >>+{ >>+ /* no-ops */ >>+} > > A bit of a coding style difference between the two functions, yet they > do the same thing :)
I intended to emphasize the pair. I'll unify them if not needed.
>>+int iochk_read(iocookie *cookie) >>+{ >>+ /* no-ops */ >>+ return 0; >>+} > > Why not just return the cookie? Can this ever fail?
In this time, no one initializes the cookie, so I just ignored it.
> Shouldn't these go into a .h file and be made "static inline" so they > just compile away to nothing?
I'm not used to inlining... In case of generic definition above, absolutely it should be inlined. OK, I'll try.
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(iochk_clear); >>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(iochk_read); > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() perhaps?
Yea.
>>+#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_IOMAP_CHECK >>+typedef unsigned long iocookie; >>+#endif > > Why typedef this if it isn't specified?
Because I stuck to have short name alias, and wanted to hide even whether it is struct or not.
Thanks, H.Seto
- 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/
| |