From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752393AbXDONba (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:31:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752770AbXDONba (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:31:30 -0400 Received: from dhuumrelay0.dtm.ops.eu.uu.net ([194.139.33.69]:41872 "EHLO dhuumrelay0.dtm.ops.eu.uu.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752203AbXDONba (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:31:30 -0400 X-Authenticated-As: win1683552@knuut.de at dhuumrelay0.dtm.ops.eu.uu.net From: Ulrich Eckhardt To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] use C99 initialisers for PCI_VDEVICE() Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:32:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200704151234.37463.doomster@knuut.de> <46222051.9010104@garzik.org> In-Reply-To: <46222051.9010104@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704151532.39682.doomster@knuut.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 15 April 2007 14:53, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: > > (Note: CC me please, I'm not subscribed.) [...] > > -#define PCI_VDEVICE(vendor, device) \ > > - PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vendor, (device), \ > > - PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0 > > +#define PCI_VDEVICE(vend, dev) \ > > + .vendor=PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vend, .device=(dev), \ > > + .subvendor=PCI_ANY_ID, .subdevice=PCI_ANY_ID, \ > > + .class=0, .class_mask=0 > > NAK. C99 initializers were intentionally avoided. Look at the usage of > this macro. I'm aware of the uses and documentation of this, I was just under the impression that C99 initialisers were the agreed way to go because of their resistance against reording of fields. Of course, if that assumption is wrong, this patch is moot anyway. Am I generally wrong or is this case an intentional exception? Uli