Re: [PATCH 7/8] IR: extend ir_raw_event and do refactoring

["David Härdeman" <david@hardeman.nu>]

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 07:02:33PM -0400, Andy Walls wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:27 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:50:46PM -0400, Andy Walls wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 11:26 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm generally good with this entire patch, but the union usage looks a
> > > > bit odd, as the members aren't of the same size, which is generally
> > > > what I've come to expect looking at other code.
> > > 
> > > Having a union with different sized members is perfectly valid C code. 
> > > 
> 
> > Yeah, no, I know that it'll work, just that most of the unions I've
> > actually paid any attention to had members all of the same size. Seemed
> > like sort of an unwritten rule for in-kernel use. But its probably just
> > fine.
> 
> Well if it's an unwritten rule, not everyone is following it. :)
> There are numerous counter-examples in include/linux/*.h .  Here are a
> few easy to see ones:

Not to mention that the use of a union sends an important message to the 
programmer reading the code - i.e. that only one of the union members 
can be used in the same event.


-- 
David Härdeman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html