On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:13:23 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 07/08/13 09:44, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Things like this likely being ended up with typo. How about this? (not
>> tested)
>
> And yet there aren't any typos.
Yes, but there's a possibility of adding one later. I have a memory
that when Jiri added something similar there's one so we changed to use
macros for that.
>
>>
>> #define __PRINT_ATTR(fmt, cast, field) \
>> fprintf(fp, " %-28s "fmt"\n", #field, cast attr->field)
>>
>> #define PRINT_ATTR_D32(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%u", ,field)
>> #define PRINT_ATTR_X32(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%#x", ,field)
>> #define PRINT_ATTR_D64(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%"PRIu64, (uint64_t), field)
>> #define PRINT_ATTR_X64(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%#"PRIx64, (uint64_t), field)
>> #define PRINT_ATTR2(field1, field2) \
>> fprintf(fp, " %-28s %u %-28s %u\n", \
>> #field1, attr->field1, #field2, attr->field2)
>
> That does not allow the output to be nicely formatted. In some cases the
> field name is just too long and I have abbreviated it.
But yet there aren't any longer than 28. :)
>
> When you add in all the variations you just get a macro mess.
I think above 5 is enough but who knows..
Anyway I won't arguing on it strongly, it's just a matter of styles IMHO.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
