On Sunday 15 April 2007 14:53, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: > > (Note: CC me please, I'm not subscribed.) [...] > > -#define PCI_VDEVICE(vendor, device) \ > > - PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vendor, (device), \ > > - PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0 > > +#define PCI_VDEVICE(vend, dev) \ > > + .vendor=PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vend, .device=(dev), \ > > + .subvendor=PCI_ANY_ID, .subdevice=PCI_ANY_ID, \ > > + .class=0, .class_mask=0 > > NAK. C99 initializers were intentionally avoided. Look at the usage of > this macro.
I'm aware of the uses and documentation of this, I was just under the impression that C99 initialisers were the agreed way to go because of their resistance against reording of fields. Of course, if that assumption is wrong, this patch is moot anyway. Am I generally wrong or is this case an intentional exception? Uli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
