[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 2/4] ntoskrnl.exe: Use static initializer for device_drivers.
From:       Sebastian Lackner <sebastian () fds-team ! de>
Date:       2016-08-31 13:10:10
Message-ID: ebbe7aca-bd46-9a96-e659-58ee8ceea631 () fds-team ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On 31.08.2016 14:10, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 30.08.2016 22:00, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
>> On 30.08.2016 21:30, Jacek Caban wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jacek Caban <jacek@codeweavers.com>
>>> ---
>>>  dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c | 40 ++++++++--------------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to use a macro similar to LIST_INIT() for that (to allow
>> later changes of the internal structure)?
> 
> I considered that. In case of list, I believe that motivation for the
> macro was not about hiding internal structure, but due to non-obvious
> initialization (it sets two pointer to point to the same struct). I
> believe that this logic does not apply to wine_rb_tree. However, I'm
> fine with having the macro.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jacek
> 

So far both solutions are fine, and currently I also do not see any need
to have non-null struct initializations. I'll leave the final decision up
to Alexandre.

Best regards,
Sebastian




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]