| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][ATM]: [lanai] ioctl only meant for debugging (from mitch@xxxxxxxxxx) |
| From: | Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:45:11 -0700 |
| Cc: | chas williams <chas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030922190017.A27677@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200309221755.h8MHt5kT010184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030922190017.A27677@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
Christoph Hellwig wrote (in two different emails):
> Umm, shouldn't you just ifdef out the whole function and it's
> assignment to the operations vector? This looks horribly ugly..
Sorry for any ugliness - its my fault. I personally don't think it really
makes a difference either way. Its already #ifdef'ed the same way in 2.6.
> and
> third your (void)arg crap is ugly as hell. (what compiler do you have
> that complains about this, btw, gcc 3.3 doesn't..).
"gcc -Wunused-parameter"
It's true that the kernel doesn't compile with that option but I've gotten
in the habit of adding the "(void) x;" from working on other projects that
do. I think it's pretty harmless.
> #if FOO
> foo_ioctl()
> {
> }
> #else
> #define foo_ioctl NULL
> #endif
Yes, that would probably be (a bit) cleaner. That's what we already
use for lanai_proc_read if !CONFIG_PROC_FS
-Mitch
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] ne2k-pci full duplex with RealTek, Paul Gortmaker |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH][ATM]: [he] possibly using corrupted structure (from felipewd@xxxxxxxxxxxx), David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][ATM]: [lanai] ioctl only meant for debugging (from mitch@xxxxxxxxxx), Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][ATM]: [lanai] ioctl only meant for debugging (from mitch@xxxxxxxxxx), David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |