Hello Sebastian,
Please see below
On Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:38 PM I wrote:
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 06/30] usb/gadget: add some infracture to
> register/unregister functions
>
<snip>
> > +#define DECLARE_USB_FUNCTION(_name, _inst_alloc, _func_alloc)
> > \
> > + static struct usb_function_driver _name ## usb_func = { \
> > + .name = __stringify(_name), \
> > + .mod = THIS_MODULE, \
> > + .alloc_inst = _inst_alloc, \
> > + .alloc_func = _func_alloc, \
> > + }; \
> > + MODULE_ALIAS("usbfunc:"__stringify(_name));
> > +
> > +#define DECLARE_USB_FUNCTION_INIT(_name, _inst_alloc, _func_alloc) \
> > + DECLARE_USB_FUNCTION(_name, _inst_alloc, _func_alloc) \
> > + static int __init _name ## mod_init(void) \
> > + { \
> > + return usb_function_register(&_name ## usb_func); \
> > + } \
> > + static void __exit _name ## mod_exit(void) \
> > + { \
> > + usb_function_unregister(&_name ## usb_func); \
> > + } \
> > + module_init(_name ## mod_init); \
> > + module_exit(_name ## mod_exit)
> > +
>
> I don't understand splitting the macro in two. The latter macro is
> to be used in modules and this is what you recommend, and it calls
> the first macro. So the first macro should be used in places other
> than modules, but the very reason of this patch is to make f_xxxx.c
> files modules. Code clarity improvements because of this are
> disputable; I find this split rather confusing.
> Can you give an example situation where the first macro
> must be called without the second macro?
>
Don't bother. I found it in the next patch in the series.
AP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
