Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] The future of framebuffer

[Paul M. <le...@Ch...>]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 10:20:04PM +0400, Nick Kurshev wrote:
> Do you mean a character devices?:
> 
> #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= 0x020400
> static struct file_operations xxx_fops =
> {
> 	llseek:		xxx_lseek,
> 	read:		xxx_read,
> 	write:		xxx_write,
> 	ioctl:		xxx_ioctl,
> 	mmap:		xxx_mmap,
> 	open:		xxx_open,
> 	release: 	xxx_release
> };
> #else
> static struct file_operations xxx_fops =
> {
> 	xxx_lseek,
> 	xxx_read,
> 	xxx_write,
> 	NULL,
> 	NULL,
> 	xxx_ioctl,
> 	xxx_mmap,
> 	xxx_open,
> 	NULL,
> 	xxx_release
> };
> #endif
> 
Er.. this is utterly useless by the way. the above notation is not a 2.4
specific thing.

static struct file_operations xxx_fops = {
	llseek:		xxx_llseek,
	read:		xxx_read,
	write:		xxx_write,
	ioctl:		xxx_ioctl,
	mmap:		xxx_mmap,
	open:		xxx_open,
	release:	xxx_release,
};

works just fine the way it is. strict ansi C doesn't like it.. but it's a
standard anyways. c99 notation for the same thing is:

static struct file_operations xxx_fops = {
	.llseek 	= &xxx_llseek,
	.read		= &xxx_read,
	.write		= &xxx_write,
	.ioctl		= &xxx_ioctl,
	.mmap		= &xxx_mmap,
	.open		= &xxx_open,
	.release	= &xxx_release,
};

though I don't care for c99 in general.

Anything that still does the "let's fill in all function pointers with NULL if
we don't have a function, and list everything in order" thing is broken and
needs to be fixed.

Regards,

-- 
Paul Mundt <le...@ch...>