Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:05:29 +0200 | From | Christer Weinigel <> | Subject | Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE(). |
| |
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:28:45AM -0700, Russ Dill wrote: >> My vote is for ARRAY_AND_SIZE to spread far and wide across the land. >> ARRAY_SIZE is already very safe, as it has a __must_be_array macro >> built in. So ARRAY_AND_SIZE is even safer, as it prevents you from >> mixing up two different arrays. It also reduces line length and makes >> driver and device (usually platform_device) registration code easier >> to read. > > It also spreads ARRAY_SIZE misnaming futher.
You still haven't explained what's misnamed about it, nor suggested a better name.
> It introduces one more core macro and quite pointless one. I can't > personally recall a single bug where sizeof() was taken from another > array.
You haven't written a lot of machine definitions then. When adding platform devices for an embedded platform one has to write a lot of boilerplate like this:
platform_add_devices(n30_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(n30_devices));
and it is much too easy to copy paste that line and miss one of the references.
> It creates interesting confusion point: ARRAY_AND_SIZE is about array > and it's size. What ARRAY_SIZE is about then?
ARRAY_AND_SIZE -> (An) array and (its) size
ARRAY_SIZE -> (The) array size
Sure, you could write ARRAY_AND_ITS_SIZE, but would that really make anyone happy? Cobol went out of fashion a long time ago.
/Christer
| |