Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751243AbVIYIUg (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:20:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751244AbVIYIUg (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:20:36 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:35529 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243AbVIYIUf (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:20:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove DRM_ARRAY_SIZE From: Arjan van de Ven To: Dave Airlie Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , Michael Veeck , dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20050924211139.GA18795@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:20:21 +0200 Message-Id: <1127636422.16288.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1060 Lines: 27 On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 00:56 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > drivers/char/drm/drmP.h defines a macro DRM_ARRAY_SIZE(x) for > > determining the size of an array. kernel.h already provides one. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan > > Nak. > > We have DRM_ for cross platform reasons in DRM, I could in theory get rid > of all of them in the kernel, but it would make the merging of code from > DRM CVS even more of a nightmare, ok so this brings the question: how does naming it DRM_ARRAY_SIZE make it more portable than naming it ARRAY_SIZE? If *BSD doesn't have ARRAY_SIZE, then surely naming it ARRAY_SIZE is easy for them to provide (after all they need to provide it already just called DRM_ARRAY_SIZE); if they have ARRAY_SIZE... then I assume it has the exact same semantics.... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/