On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:20:41 +0000
Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Looks okay to me.
>
>
> > #define DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(vendor, device, hook) \
> > DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_SECTION(.pci_fixup_enable, \
> > vendor##device##hook, vendor, device, hook)
> > +#define DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(vendor, device, hook) \
> > + DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_SECTION(.pci_fixup_resume, \
> > + resume##vendor##device##hook, vendor, device, hook)
>
> Maybe having DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_ALWAYS (meaning ENABLE+RESUME) would reduce the code
> duplication?
There is almost no duplication if you actually look at the output of the
code. It simply generates entries into two jump/match tables. Doing a
PCI_FIXUP for both is ugly because of the ordering requirements.
Alan
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
