From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/25] Replace DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro use Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:54:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1405702472.30262.1.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> References: <1405697232-11785-1-git-send-email-benoit.taine@lip6.fr> <20140718162213.GC31114@tuxdriver.com> <20140718164340.GA24960@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Benoit Taine , ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, linux-acenic@sunsite.dk, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-hippi@sunsite.dk, industrypack-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@avagotech.com, ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, wil6210@qca.qualcomm.com, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, "John W. Linville" , linux-can@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, devel@l To: Greg KH Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140718164340.GA24960@kroah.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:26:47PM +0200, Benoit Taine wrote: > > > We should prefer `const struct pci_device_id` over > > > `DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE` to meet kernel coding style guidelines. > > > This issue was reported by checkpatch. > > > > Honestly, I prefer the macro -- it stands-out more. Maybe the style > > guidelines and/or checkpatch should change instead? > > The macro is horrid, no other bus has this type of thing just to save a > few characters in typing OK, so this is the macro: #define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \ const struct pci_device_id _table[] Could you explain what's so horrible? The reason it's useful today is that people forget the const (and sometimes the [] making it a true table instead of a pointer). If you use the DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro, the compile breaks if you use it wrongly (good) and you automatically get the correct annotations. > , so why should PCI be "special" in this regard > anymore? I think the PCI usage dwarfs most other bus types now, so you could turn the question around. However, I don't think majority voting is a good guide to best practise; lets debate the merits for their own sake. James