On 2008-03-03T17:10:10, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if any patch causes any trouble, feel free to back it out; they should > all be independent of each other. But preferably do so in an amended form > that includes a comment about why the original code was the way it was.
Hi David, http://hg.linux-ha.org/dev/rev/b71a9500faa3 greatly reduces readability. The [0] array trick is a very common approach, and I know of no compiler which cannot handle this. http://hg.linux-ha.org/dev/rev/fdfc8903459c This, too, reduces readability a _lot_. Is that the best approach? The Linux kernel uses named initializers too, but a form like static struct scsi_host_template idescsi_template = { .module = THIS_MODULE, .name = "idescsi", .info = idescsi_info, .slave_configure = idescsi_slave_configure, Notice the leading "."; does that work on your compilers? Otherwise, ordering matters for these long, long lists, which makes code maintenance a pain. Are you sure the order is right in your cleanups? Portability is alright, but there comes a point where modern language features such as ISO C99 really help. It's 2008, afterall ;-) Please, do not improve portability at the cost of code maintenance effort. Regards, Lars -- Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
