From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank van Maarseveen Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] NFS: Use C99 struct initializers in nfs4proc.c Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20070531081803.GA24538@janus> References: <20070525214105.28668.75496.stgit@schiele.1015granger.net> <1180202462.5517.8.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <465C3459.7010302@oracle.com> <1180555947.6770.53.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htfr8-0006Ll-KC for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 31 May 2007 01:18:02 -0700 Received: from frankvm.xs4all.nl ([80.126.170.174] helo=janus.localdomain) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HtfrB-0005Rf-Aj for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 31 May 2007 01:18:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1180555947.6770.53.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:12:27PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 10:10 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 17:41 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > >> Follow kernel coding conventions. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever > > >> --- > > >> > > >> fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h | 5 ++++ > > >> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > > >> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h b/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h > > >> index cf3a17e..1a526c4 100644 > > >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h > > >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h > > >> @@ -145,6 +145,11 @@ struct nfs4_exception { > > >> int retry; > > >> }; > > >> > > >> +#define DECLARE_NFS4_EXCEPTION(name) \ > > >> + struct nfs4_exception name = { \ > > >> + .timeout = 0, \ > > >> + } > > > > > > Why would we want this? The existing code uses bog standard C99 > > > initialisers. There is no need to explicitly set .timeout to zero. > > > > Using > > > > struct nfs4_exception name = { }; > > > > causes compiler complaints. One correct way to fix this is to set at > > least one field in the structure, and setting that field to zero clears > > the other one by default. > > I can't find anything in Harbison & Steele stating that name = {} is > illegal. All they say is that "if there are fewer initializers than > there are structure components, the remaining components are initialized > to their default initial values.". AFAIK and I checked ISO/IEC 9899:1999 to be sure, {initializer-list} cannot be empty according to the C syntax. > > Anyhow, if you really do have to set one component, then a much less > verbose form would be to write "name = {0}" There is no need for the > macro. > -- Frank ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs