Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:45:43 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE(). |
| |
[Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 03:05:29PM +0200] > 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 >
Christer, _I_ was complaining not about naming but about hiding function arguments. I suppose it's better to define some inline wrapper for platform_add_devices then use such a macro.
If you google a bit you may find that I was asking someday why don't we define alias for memset when we just it as _clearing_ routine ie memset(x, 0, sizeof(x)).
- Cyrill -
| |