On Dec 6, 2007 6:54 PM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * FIXME: Acessing the desc_struct through its fields is more elegant,
> > + * and should be the one valid thing to do. However, a lot of open code
> > + * still touches the a and b acessors, and doing this allow us to do it
> > + * incrementally. We keep the signature as a struct, rather than an union,
> > + * so we can get rid of it transparently in the future -- glommer
> > + */
> > +#define raw_desc_struct struct { unsigned int a, b; }
> > +#define detailed_desc_struct \
> > + struct { \
> > + u16 limit0; \
> > + u16 base0; \
> > + unsigned base1 : 8, type : 4, s : 1, dpl : 2, p : 1; \
> > + unsigned limit : 4, avl : 1, l : 1, d : 1, g : 1, base2 :8;\
> > + }
>
> The standard clean way to do this is with a anonymous union.
It is an anonymous union.
However:
* It's an union of structs
* I wished to keep the toplevel type as a struct
The alternative would be to write:
struct desc_struct {
union {
struct { unsigned int a, b; };
struct {
u16 limit0;
u16 base0;
unsigned base1 : 8, type : 4, s : 1, dpl : 2, p : 1;
unsigned limit : 4, avl : 1, l : 1, d : 1, g : 1, base2 :8;
};
};
};
Which is fine, it's all the same in the end. Just with more shift
rights, and more visual pollution.
--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
