* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-19 7:22 ` Eric Miao
@ 2008-09-19 7:32 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-09-19 13:28 ` Stefan Richter
2008-09-19 15:28 ` Russ Dill
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-09-19 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Miao; +Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Ben Dooks, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel
[Eric Miao - Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 03:22:13PM +0800]
| On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
| > [Eric Miao - Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:38:21AM +0800]
| > | On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
| > | > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:24:47PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
| > | >> Move the ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro from arch/arm/mach-pxa/generic.h
| > | >> to a more useful position in include/linux/kernel.h. This macro
| > | >> is very useful to registration functions that take an array and
| > | >> the number of array elements in it as consecutive arguments.
| > | >>
| > | >> The macro also should ensure that mistakes where the wrong array
| > | >> is used to the ARRAY_SIZE() macro is passed. It also makes it
| > | >> easier to avoid wrapping registration function arguments.
| > | >
| > | >> --- linux-2.6.27-rc6-quilt4.orig/include/linux/kernel.h
| > | >> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc6-quilt4/include/linux/kernel.h
| > | >> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ extern const char linux_proc_banner[];
| > | >> #define IS_ALIGNED(x, a) (((x) & ((typeof(x))(a) - 1)) == 0)
| > | >>
| > | >> #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
| > | >> +#define ARRAY_AND_SIZE(arr) (arr), ARRAY_SIZE(arr)
| > | >
| > | > Just like ARRAY_SIZE, it is misnamed.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Any hint about the correct spelling?
| > |
| > | > And it isn't obvious to what it expands. Hopefully arm people will
| > | > remove it. :-)
| > |
| > | This is handy to use, saving several key strokes and making the line
| > | shorter. If it's not obvious to what it expands, there must be some
| > | fix for it?
| > |
| >
| > well, it seems it's not that good to use ARRAY_AND_SIZE at all.
| > Yes it's short but quite frankly - hiding number of args is not
| > that good.
| >
| > example
| >
| > static void ssp_send_cmd(uint32_t *cmd, int num);
| >
| > called as
| >
| > ssp_send_cmd(ARRAY_AND_SIZE(lcd_panel_on));
| >
| > thanks it's not that spreaded across kernel.
| > Someday it could lead to ARRAY_AND_SIZE_CHECK_IF_EXIST_AND_PANIC :)
|
| Probably that not gonna happen.
|
| without ARRAY_AND_SIZE:
|
| ssp_send_cmd(lcd_panel_on, ARRAY_SIZE(lcd_panel_on));
|
| with:
|
| ssp_send_cmd(ARRAY_AND_SIZE(lcd_panel_on));
|
| where you don't have to repeat the array name. I have to admit
| that a macro expanding to something like an argument list instead
| of a single variable or something is not a good idea. But, we are
| using C, and there's no easy way just to pass the array itself,
| otherwise one may come up with:
|
| ssp_send_cmd(lcd_panel_on);
|
| ssp_send_cmd(array a)
| {
| int size = a.length();
|
| ........
| }
|
| I'm not trying to buy anyone anything, just illustrate this, and see
| if anyone else is interested in doing so.
|
Absolutely agreed with this (ie pass _one_ array name). Would
be a good cleanup.
- Cyrill -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-19 7:22 ` Eric Miao
2008-09-19 7:32 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-09-19 13:28 ` Stefan Richter
2008-09-19 15:28 ` Russ Dill
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Richter @ 2008-09-19 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Miao
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov, Alexey Dobriyan, Ben Dooks, linux-kernel,
linux-arm-kernel
Eric Miao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> well, it seems it's not that good to use ARRAY_AND_SIZE at all.
>> Yes it's short but quite frankly - hiding number of args is not
>> that good.
...
> I have to admit
> that a macro expanding to something like an argument list instead
> of a single variable or something is not a good idea. But, we are
> using C,
...
Exactly, we generally program in C --- not in cpp.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- =--= =--==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-19 7:22 ` Eric Miao
2008-09-19 7:32 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-09-19 13:28 ` Stefan Richter
@ 2008-09-19 15:28 ` Russ Dill
2008-09-19 17:55 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Russ Dill @ 2008-09-19 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Miao
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov, linux-arm-kernel, Alexey Dobriyan, Ben Dooks,
linux-kernel
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Eric Miao - Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:38:21AM +0800]
>> | On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> | > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:24:47PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> | >> Move the ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro from arch/arm/mach-pxa/generic.h
>> | >> to a more useful position in include/linux/kernel.h. This macro
>> | >> is very useful to registration functions that take an array and
>> | >> the number of array elements in it as consecutive arguments.
>> | >>
>> | >> The macro also should ensure that mistakes where the wrong array
>> | >> is used to the ARRAY_SIZE() macro is passed. It also makes it
>> | >> easier to avoid wrapping registration function arguments.
>> | >
>> | >> --- linux-2.6.27-rc6-quilt4.orig/include/linux/kernel.h
>> | >> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc6-quilt4/include/linux/kernel.h
>> | >> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ extern const char linux_proc_banner[];
>> | >> #define IS_ALIGNED(x, a) (((x) & ((typeof(x))(a) - 1)) == 0)
>> | >>
>> | >> #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
>> | >> +#define ARRAY_AND_SIZE(arr) (arr), ARRAY_SIZE(arr)
>> | >
>> | > Just like ARRAY_SIZE, it is misnamed.
>> | >
>> |
>> | Any hint about the correct spelling?
>> |
>> | > And it isn't obvious to what it expands. Hopefully arm people will
>> | > remove it. :-)
>> |
>> | This is handy to use, saving several key strokes and making the line
>> | shorter. If it's not obvious to what it expands, there must be some
>> | fix for it?
>> |
>>
>> well, it seems it's not that good to use ARRAY_AND_SIZE at all.
>> Yes it's short but quite frankly - hiding number of args is not
>> that good.
>>
>> example
>>
>> static void ssp_send_cmd(uint32_t *cmd, int num);
>>
>> called as
>>
>> ssp_send_cmd(ARRAY_AND_SIZE(lcd_panel_on));
>>
>> thanks it's not that spreaded across kernel.
>> Someday it could lead to ARRAY_AND_SIZE_CHECK_IF_EXIST_AND_PANIC :)
>
> Probably that not gonna happen.
>
> without ARRAY_AND_SIZE:
>
> ssp_send_cmd(lcd_panel_on, ARRAY_SIZE(lcd_panel_on));
>
> with:
>
> ssp_send_cmd(ARRAY_AND_SIZE(lcd_panel_on));
>
> where you don't have to repeat the array name. I have to admit
> that a macro expanding to something like an argument list instead
> of a single variable or something is not a good idea. But, we are
> using C, and there's no easy way just to pass the array itself,
> otherwise one may come up with:
>
> ssp_send_cmd(lcd_panel_on);
>
> ssp_send_cmd(array a)
> {
> int size = a.length();
>
> ........
> }
>
> I'm not trying to buy anyone anything, just illustrate this, and see
> if anyone else is interested in doing so.
>
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-19 15:28 ` Russ Dill
@ 2008-09-19 17:55 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-09-20 13:05 ` Christer Weinigel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Dobriyan @ 2008-09-19 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russ Dill
Cc: Eric Miao, Cyrill Gorcunov, linux-arm-kernel, Ben Dooks,
linux-kernel
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.
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.
It creates interesting confusion point: ARRAY_AND_SIZE is about array
and it's size. What ARRAY_SIZE is about then?
You want default argument values in fact, but C is C.
Alexey "(array (nr (length array)))" Dobriyan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-19 17:55 ` Alexey Dobriyan
@ 2008-09-20 13:05 ` Christer Weinigel
2008-09-20 13:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-09-20 22:07 ` Chris Moore
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Christer Weinigel @ 2008-09-20 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexey Dobriyan
Cc: Russ Dill, Eric Miao, Cyrill Gorcunov, linux-arm-kernel,
Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 13:05 ` Christer Weinigel
@ 2008-09-20 13:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-09-20 14:28 ` Christer Weinigel
2008-09-20 22:07 ` Chris Moore
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-09-20 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christer Weinigel
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, Eric Miao, linux-arm-kernel,
Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
[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 -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 13:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-09-20 14:28 ` Christer Weinigel
2008-09-20 14:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Christer Weinigel @ 2008-09-20 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cyrill Gorcunov
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, Eric Miao, linux-arm-kernel,
Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [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.
> 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.
Sorry about that. I should have commented the earlier one.
In my opinion, making platform_add_devices into a magic macro is
actually worse, since the same construct (array, ARRAY_SIZE(array)) is
used in many places, so one would have to do the same thing over and
over again for every function. In that case it's better to have to
learn one macro once, and the ALL_CAPITALS should make it obvious that
it is a macro.
/Christer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 14:28 ` Christer Weinigel
@ 2008-09-20 14:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-09-20 16:38 ` Christer Weinigel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-09-20 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christer Weinigel
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, Eric Miao, linux-arm-kernel,
Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
[Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 04:28:19PM +0200]
...
>
> In my opinion, making platform_add_devices into a magic macro is
> actually worse, since the same construct (array, ARRAY_SIZE(array)) is
> used in many places, so one would have to do the same thing over and
> over again for every function. In that case it's better to have to
> learn one macro once, and the ALL_CAPITALS should make it obvious that
> it is a macro.
>
> /Christer
>
Well, can't agree with you :) It's my _presonal_ opinion.
You could define it as
static inline int platform_add_devices_array(struct platform_device **devs)
{
return platform_add_devices(devs, ARRAY_SIZE(devs));
}
for me it would look much better then hide args by MACRO.
And I don't feel any hard about to use platform_add_devices
with TWO arguments. But I repeat - it's my _personal_ opinion.
- Cyrill -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 14:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-09-20 16:38 ` Christer Weinigel
2008-09-20 17:12 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Christer Weinigel @ 2008-09-20 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cyrill Gorcunov
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, Eric Miao, linux-arm-kernel,
Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 04:28:19PM +0200]
> ...
>> In my opinion, making platform_add_devices into a magic macro is
>> actually worse, since the same construct (array, ARRAY_SIZE(array)) is
>> used in many places, so one would have to do the same thing over and
>> over again for every function. In that case it's better to have to
>> learn one macro once, and the ALL_CAPITALS should make it obvious that
>> it is a macro.
> Well, can't agree with you :) It's my _presonal_ opinion.
> You could define it as
>
> static inline int platform_add_devices_array(struct platform_device **devs)
> {
> return platform_add_devices(devs, ARRAY_SIZE(devs));
> }
Won't work. You would have to use a macro. The above would turn into:
platform_add_devices(devs, 1);
or would if the __must_be_array check didn't catch it.
/Christer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 16:38 ` Christer Weinigel
@ 2008-09-20 17:12 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-09-20 17:33 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-09-20 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christer Weinigel
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, Eric Miao, linux-arm-kernel,
Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
[Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 06:38:51PM +0200]
> Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> [Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 04:28:19PM +0200]
>> ...
>>> In my opinion, making platform_add_devices into a magic macro is
>>> actually worse, since the same construct (array, ARRAY_SIZE(array))
>>> is used in many places, so one would have to do the same thing over
>>> and over again for every function. In that case it's better to have
>>> to learn one macro once, and the ALL_CAPITALS should make it obvious
>>> that it is a macro.
>
>> Well, can't agree with you :) It's my _presonal_ opinion.
>> You could define it as
>>
>> static inline int platform_add_devices_array(struct platform_device **devs)
>> {
>> return platform_add_devices(devs, ARRAY_SIZE(devs));
>> }
>
> Won't work. You would have to use a macro. The above would turn into:
>
> platform_add_devices(devs, 1);
>
> or would if the __must_be_array check didn't catch it.
>
> /Christer
>
Ah...indeed, my bad :) gcc is not that smart (yet). So there only
the macro is possible (just forget that it will be different
namespace scope). Anyway even having it like a macro would be
better then hiding args.
- Cyrill -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 17:12 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-09-20 17:33 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-09-20 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christer Weinigel, Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, Eric Miao,
linux-arm-kernel, Ben Dooks, linux-kernel
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 09:12:16PM +0400]
| [Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 06:38:51PM +0200]
| > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >> [Christer Weinigel - Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 04:28:19PM +0200]
| >> ...
| >>> In my opinion, making platform_add_devices into a magic macro is
| >>> actually worse, since the same construct (array, ARRAY_SIZE(array))
| >>> is used in many places, so one would have to do the same thing over
| >>> and over again for every function. In that case it's better to have
| >>> to learn one macro once, and the ALL_CAPITALS should make it obvious
| >>> that it is a macro.
| >
| >> Well, can't agree with you :) It's my _presonal_ opinion.
| >> You could define it as
| >>
| >> static inline int platform_add_devices_array(struct platform_device **devs)
| >> {
| >> return platform_add_devices(devs, ARRAY_SIZE(devs));
| >> }
| >
| > Won't work. You would have to use a macro. The above would turn into:
| >
| > platform_add_devices(devs, 1);
| >
| > or would if the __must_be_array check didn't catch it.
| >
| > /Christer
| >
|
| Ah...indeed, my bad :) gcc is not that smart (yet). So there only
| the macro is possible (just forget that it will be different
| namespace scope). Anyway even having it like a macro would be
| better then hiding args.
|
| - Cyrill -
ie I mean
#define platform_add_devices_array(devs) \
platform_add_devices(devs, ARRAY_SIZE(devs))
which should satisfy the requirements. Please note that I'm not
trying to say it should be done like that - just a propose which
looks for me much better the ARRAY_AND_SIZE in context of routine
argument.
ps: i was to use macro before inline func but someone inside me
was talking - hey, use function, not macro... and I gave up :)
- Cyrill -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: kernel.h: add ARRAY_AND_SIZE() macro to complement ARRAY_SIZE().
2008-09-20 13:05 ` Christer Weinigel
2008-09-20 13:45 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-09-20 22:07 ` Chris Moore
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Chris Moore @ 2008-09-20 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christer Weinigel
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Russ Dill, linux-kernel, Cyrill Gorcunov,
Ben Dooks, linux-arm-kernel
Christer Weinigel a écrit :
> 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.
>
ARRAY_LENGTH and ARRAY_AND_LENGTH would be better names IMHO.
AIUI the usual convention is to use :-
- "size" for the size in the sizeof sense; i.e. (in most
implementations) the size in _bytes_,
- "length" for the size in the sense of the number of _elements_ in an
array (sizeof(array) / sizeof((array)[0])) which seems to be the
intention here.
Cheers,
Chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread