[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/25] Replace DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro use
- To: "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:43:40 -0700
- Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Benoit Taine <benoit.taine@xxxxxxx>, ath5k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-acenic@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ath10k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hippi@xxxxxxxxxx, industrypack-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wil6210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pcmcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:44:20 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:26:47PM +0200, Benoit Taine wrote:
> > We should prefer `const struct pci_device_id` over
> > `DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE` to meet kernel coding style guidelines.
> > This issue was reported by checkpatch.
>
> Honestly, I prefer the macro -- it stands-out more. Maybe the style
> guidelines and/or checkpatch should change instead?
The macro is horrid, no other bus has this type of thing just to save a
few characters in typing, so why should PCI be "special" in this regard
anymore?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
