On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Magnus Damm wrote:
>
> > Pass a private data pointer to macros and functions. This makes it easy
> > to later on make run time decisions. This patch does not change any logic.
> > These changes should be optimized away during compilation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
>
> > --- 0001/drivers/net/smc91x.c
> > +++ work/drivers/net/smc91x.c 2008-02-20 16:52:48.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -220,23 +220,23 @@ static void PRINT_PKT(u_char *buf, int l
> >
> >
> > /* this enables an interrupt in the interrupt mask register */
> > -#define SMC_ENABLE_INT(x) do {
> \
> > +#define SMC_ENABLE_INT(priv, x) do { \
> > unsigned char mask; \
> > - spin_lock_irq(&lp->lock); \
> > - mask = SMC_GET_INT_MASK(); \
> > + spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock); \
> > + mask = SMC_GET_INT_MASK(priv); \
>
> Since "lp" is already used all over the place, could you simply use "lp"
> for the macro argument name as well instead of "priv"? This will make
> the code more uniform and reduce the patch size.
I used the name "priv" instead of "lp" intentionally to make sure I
got compile errors if I missed something. Some variables like "ioaddr"
are today not passed as arguments to the macros but simply assumed to
be present as local variables. I wanted to avoid using the local "lp"
variable by mistake. So the "priv" name is actually a feature. =)
I'd be happy to rewrite the patch to use "lp" though, but I have to
confess that I don't see the point in redoing it. Anyway, please let
me know what you prefer.
Thank you.
/ magnus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
