Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> writes: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:22:32 +0930 Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> > wrote: >> 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".
I always thought of a type which can map to varying types under different arch/configs as the typical typedef. > Sorry, but I don't think "Rusty doesn't like it" is a good reason for > the module code to be different. But "Rusty has to maintain it" is a pretty strong counter argument, IMHO. > All of us dislike some aspects of > kernel coding practices, but we go along because consistency is more > important. Consistency is important when it makes things more readable, sure. I don't think any kernel devs are going to get confused seeing a function pointer, and I think this patch makes the code slightly less readable. Enough not to apply the patch, but not enough waste more time on it. Cheers, Rusty. -- 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/
