From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755991AbZHNRYM (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:24:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755326AbZHNRYL (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:24:11 -0400 Received: from 136-022.dsl.LABridge.com ([206.117.136.22]:1812 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755100AbZHNRYL (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:24:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] new kfifo API v0.3 - add DEFINE_KFIFO and friends, add very tiny functions From: Joe Perches To: Stefani Seibold Cc: linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , Andi Kleen , Amerigo Wang In-Reply-To: <1250269434.5644.15.camel@wall-e> References: <1250250262.19690.95.camel@wall-e> <1250263254.15269.456.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <1250269434.5644.15.camel@wall-e> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:23:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1250270613.15269.464.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:03 +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote: > Am Freitag, den 14.08.2009, 08:20 -0700 schrieb Joe Perches: > > > Add INIT_KFIFO - macro to initialize a with DECLARE_KFIFO declared kfifo > > What does the description mean? > Exactly what it meas. If you declare a kfifo with DECLARE_KIFO than you > must initialize this fifo which INIT_KFIFO. I recognize the intent, but you should read the description to yourself slowly. It's also the same content in the kerneldoc. Maybe INIT_KFIFO - Initialize a kfifo declared by DECLARED_KFIFO > > I think you should mention somewhere that these macros > > actually define 2 objects. "name##_buffer" might have > > unexpected clashes and be prefixed with kfifo. > > maybe something like "kfifo_##name##_buffer"? > Maybe name it name##_kfifo_buffer? Your choice. I think most kernel use prefers prefixes. > But before doing this i will wait for more response and for inclusion > into -mm. If i get an okay i will do a maintainance patch. It is to much > work to handle this splitted patches. Fine by me. cheers, Joe