Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964953AbVKGTDR (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:03:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964963AbVKGTDQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:03:16 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:12693 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964953AbVKGTDP (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:03:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:02:45 -0800 From: Greg KH To: linas Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, johnrose@austin.ibm.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: typedefs and structs [was Re: [PATCH 16/42]: PCI: PCI Error reporting callbacks] Message-ID: <20051107190245.GA19707@kroah.com> References: <20051103235918.GA25616@mail.gnucash.org> <20051104005035.GA26929@mail.gnucash.org> <20051105061114.GA27016@kroah.com> <17262.37107.857718.184055@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20051107175541.GB19593@austin.ibm.com> <20051107182727.GD18861@kroah.com> <20051107185621.GD19593@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051107185621.GD19593@austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1590 Lines: 41 On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 12:56:21PM -0600, linas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:27:27AM -0800, Greg KH was heard to remark: > > > > 3) realy strong typing that sparse can detect. > > Am compiling now. > > > enums don't really work, as you can get away with using an integer and > > the compiler will never complain. Please use a typedef (yeah, I said > > typedef) in the way that sparse will catch any bad users of the code. > > How about typedef'ing structs? No. Use __bitwise. See the lkml archives for how to do this properly. > I'm not to clear on what "sparse" can do; however, in the good old days, > gcc allowed you to commit great sins when passing "struct blah *" to > subroutines, whereas it stoped you cold if you tried the same trick > with a typedef'ed "blah_t *". This got me into the habit of turning > all structs into typedefs in my personal projects. Can we expect > something similar for the kernel, and in particular, should we start > typedefing structs now? No, never typedef a struct. That's just wrong. gcc should warn you just the same if you pass the wrong struct pointer (and all of your code builds without warnings, right?) > (Documentation/CodingStyle doesn't mention typedef at all). If it does, it should say not to use it at all :) Except for this case, it's special... thanks, greg k-h - 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/