On 03.09.2024 21:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 29/08/2024 3:03 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 29.08.2024 00:03, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> There's no need for the name to be so verbose. >>> >>> No functional change. >>> >>> Suggest-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> The form you use here was your suggestion, wasn't it? > > Ok, I'll drop this. > >> I'm fine with the >> change as is, so ... >> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Thanks. > >> >> Yet I still would have liked the more generic >> >> #define attr(attr...) __attribute__((attr)) > > The more I think about this, the less I think it's a good idea. > > For starters, this would force it to be attr(__const__) and suddenly all > our annotations are even longer than they were before.
Without meaning to insist, I disagree here. Just like __attribute__((const)) is fine, attr(const) would imo be, too. Jan
