[+cc Jingoo]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM, James Bottomley
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 11:17 -0700, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 09:54:32AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:26:47PM +0200, Benoit Taine wrote:

quoted

We should prefer `const struct pci_device_id` over
`DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE` to meet kernel coding style guidelines.
This issue was reported by checkpatch.

Honestly, I prefer the macro -- it stands-out more.  Maybe the style
guidelines and/or checkpatch should change instead?

The macro is horrid, no other bus has this type of thing just to save a
few characters in typing

OK, so this is the macro:

#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \
    const struct pci_device_id _table[]

Could you explain what's so horrible?

The reason it's useful today is that people forget the const (and
sometimes the [] making it a true table instead of a pointer).  If you
use the DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro, the compile breaks if you use it
wrongly (good) and you automatically get the correct annotations.

We have almost 1000 more uses of the non-macro version than the "macro"
version in the kernel today:
$ git grep -w DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE | wc -l
262
$ git grep "const struct pci_device_id" | wc -l
1254

My big complaint is that we need to be consistant, either pick one or
the other and stick to it.  As the macro is the least used, it's easiest
to fix up, and it also is more consistant with all other kernel
subsystems which do not have such a macro.

I've a weak preference for consistency, but not at the expense of
hundreds of patches churning the kernel to remove an innocuous macro.
Churn costs time and effort.

quoted

As there is no need for the __init macro mess anymore, there's no real
need for the DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro either.  I think checkpatch
will catch the use of non-const users for the id table already today, it
catches lots of other uses like this already.

quoted

quoted

, so why should PCI be "special" in this regard
anymore?

I think the PCI usage dwarfs most other bus types now, so you could turn
the question around.  However, I don't think majority voting is a good
guide to best practise; lets debate the merits for their own sake.

Not really "dwarf", USB is close with over 700 such structures:
$ git grep "const struct usb_device_id" | wc -l
725

And i2c is almost just as big as PCI:
$ git grep "const struct i2c_device_id" | wc -l
1223

So again, this macro is not consistent with the majority of PCI drivers,
nor with any other type of "device id" declaration in the kernel, which
is why I feel it should be removed.

And finally, the PCI documentation itself says to not use this macro, so
this isn't a "new" thing.  From Documentation/PCI/pci.txt:

      The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an
      all-zero entry.  Definitions with static const are generally preferred.
      Use of the deprecated macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE should be avoided.

That wording went into the file last December, when we last talked about
this and everyone in that discussion agreed to remove the macro for the
above reasons.

Consistency matters.

In this case, I don't think it does that much ... a cut and paste either
way (from a macro or non-macro based driver) yields correct code.  Since
there's no bug here and no apparent way to misuse the macro, why bother?

Anyway, it's PCI code ... let the PCI maintainer decide.  However, if he
does want this do it as one big bang patch via either the PCI or Trivial
tree (latter because Jiří has experience doing this, but the former
might be useful so the decider feels the pain ...)

I don't feel strongly either way, so I guess I'm OK with this, and in
the spirit of feeling the pain, I'm willing to handle it.  Jingoo
proposed similar patches, so it might be nice to give him some credit.

Benoit, how about if you wait until about half-way through the merge
window after v3.16 releases, generate an up-to-date single patch, and
post that?  Then we can try to get it in before v3.17-rc1 to minimize
merge hassles.

Bjorn
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization