On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:22:32 +0930 Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Minfei Huang <[email protected]> writes: > > From: Minfei Huang <[email protected]> > > > > It is not elegance, if we use function directly as the argument, like > > following: > > > > bool each_symbol_section(bool (*fn)(const struct symsearch *arr, > > struct module *owner, > > void *data), void *data); > > > > Here introduce a type defined function find_symbol_in_section_t. Now > > we can use these type defined function directly, if we want to pass > > the function as the argument. > > > > bool each_symbol_section(find_symbol_in_section_t fn, void *data); > > I disagree. > > It's shorter, but it's less clear. typedefs on functions are not very > useful: > 1) They require readers to look in two places to see how to use the > function (ie each_symbol_section). > 2) They can't use the typedef to declare their function, since that > doesn't work in C. > > If the function were being used many times, it makes sense. But > it's only used twice, once static inside module.c. > Using a foo_t typedef for a function callback is a common pattern. It's (almost) the only approved use of typedefs. The usage is widespread enough that when one sees a foo_t type, one says "ahah, that's a function pointer". Sorry, but I don't think "Rusty doesn't like it" is a good reason for the module code to be different. All of us dislike some aspects of kernel coding practices, but we go along because consistency is more important. -- 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/
