Re: [PATCH 1/4] NLM: Kill PROC macro from NLMv1 and NLMv3 server procedures

[Bian Naimeng <biannm@cn.fujitsu.com>]

> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:29 +0800, Bian Naimeng wrote:
> 
>> +	[NLMPROC_NSM_NOTIFY] = {
>> +		.pc_func	= (svc_procfunc) nlmsvc_proc_sm_notify,
>> +		.pc_decode	= (kxdrproc_t) nlmsvc_decode_reboot,
>> +		.pc_encode	= (kxdrproc_t) nlmsvc_encode_void,
>> +		.pc_release	= NULL,
>> +		.pc_argsize	= sizeof(struct nlm_reboot),
>> +		.pc_ressize	= sizeof(struct nlm_void),
>> +		.pc_xdrressize	= 1,
>> +	},
>> +	NLMSVC_NONE_PROC,
>> +	NLMSVC_NONE_PROC,
>> +	NLMSVC_NONE_PROC,
> 
> Hmm... Does the C standard really allow you to mix C99 initialisers and
> K&R initialisers in this manner?
> 

  In this point, i think C99 is compatible with K&R. If it just support K&R
  but not C99, maybe " [subscript] = {}" should not work too.

  And i have tested with gcc, it can work with -std=c99 or -ansi option.

  And may i ask other questions.  

  Q: why we must initial these three procedures, is it in order to reply ok 
      to client?  

      But i have not finded that client will send these request.

      In RFC1813, we defined NLMPROC_NSM_NOTIFY = 16 and NLMPROC_SHARE = 20,
      but why not NLMPROC_SHARE = 17? 

      I try to find the reason, but failed. Would you answer my question or
      give me some suggestions. Thanks very much.
     
Best Regard
  Bian

> Cheers
>   Trond