On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 19:18 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:

quoted

Am 07.10.2012 18:44, schrieb Julia Lawall:

quoted

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, walter harms wrote:

quoted

Am 07.10.2012 17:38, schrieb Julia Lawall:

quoted

Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
struct i2c_msg x =
- {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = I2C_M_RD}
+ I2C_MSG_READ(a,b,c)

[]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

struct i2c_msg x =
- {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = 0}
+ I2C_MSG_WRITE(a,b,c)

[]

quoted

do you really thing that a macro is appropriate here ? I feel uneasy about it
but i can not offer an other solution.

I think the macros are fine.

Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than 
the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for 
write.  A separate question is whether an array of one element is useful, 
or whether one should systematically use & on a simple variable of the 
structure type.  I'm open to suggestions about either point.

I think the macro naming is not great.

Maybe add DEFINE_/DECLARE_/_INIT or something other than an action
name type to the macro names.

I think the consistency is better if all the references are done
as arrays, even for single entry arrays.

It's all quibbling in any case.