OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/59] Cleanup sysctl
Re: [PATCH 25/59] sysctl: C99 convert arch/frv/kernel/pm.c [message #17306 is a reply to message #17261] Mon, 22 January 2007 22:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Herbert Poetzl is currently offline  Herbert Poetzl
Messages: 239
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:14:17PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> another small minor note.
> 
> > From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> - unquoted
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/frv/kernel/pm.c |   50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/pm.c b/arch/frv/kernel/pm.c
> > index c1840d6..aa50333 100644
> > --- a/arch/frv/kernel/pm.c
> > +++ b/arch/frv/kernel/pm.c
> > @@ -401,17 +401,53 @@ static int cm_sysctl(ctl_table *table, int __user *name, int nlen,
> >  
> >  static struct ctl_table pm_table[] =
> >  {
> > -	{CTL_PM_SUSPEND, "suspend", NULL, 0, 0200, NULL, &sysctl_pm_do_suspend},
> > -	{CTL_PM_CMODE, "cmode", &clock_cmode_current, sizeof(int), 0644, NULL, &cmode_procctl, &cmode_sysctl, NULL},
> > -	{CTL_PM_P0, "p0", &clock_p0_current, sizeof(int), 0644, NULL, &p0_procctl, &p0_sysctl, NULL},
> > -	{CTL_PM_CM, "cm", &clock_cm_current, sizeof(int), 0644, NULL, &cm_procctl, &cm_sysctl, NULL},
> > -	{0}
> > +	{
> > +		.ctl_name	= CTL_PM_SUSPEND,
> > +		.procname	= "suspend",
> > +		.data		= NULL,
> > +		.maxlen		= 0,
> > +		.mode		= 0200,
> > +		.proc_handler	= &sysctl_pm_do_suspend,
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.ctl_name	= CTL_PM_CMODE,
> > +		.procname	= "cmode",
> > +		.data		= &clock_cmode_current,
> > +		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
> > +		.mode		= 0644,
> > +		.proc_handler	= &cmode_procctl,
> > +		.strategy	= &cmode_sysctl,
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.ctl_name	= CTL_PM_P0,
> > +		.procname	= "p0",
> > +		.data		= &clock_p0_current,
> > +		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
> > +		.mode		= 0644,
> > +		.proc_handler	= &p0_procctl,
> > +		.strategy	= &p0_sysctl,
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.ctl_name	= CTL_PM_CM,
> > +		.procname	= "cm",
> > +		.data		= &clock_cm_current,
> > +		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
> > +		.mode		= 0644,
> > +		.proc_handler	= &cm_procctl,
> > +		.strategy	= &cm_sysctl,
> > +	},
> > +	{ .ctl_name = 0}
> in next patch (26/59) you write just "{ }". .ctl_name = 0 not required here.

I'd prefer '{ 0 }' here, but I'm fine with the '{ .ctl_name = 0 }'
too, just '{ }' seems confusing, and it actually might get
misinterpreted too ..

best,
Herbert

> >  };
> >  
> >  static struct ctl_table pm_dir_table[] =
> >  {
> > -	{CTL_PM, "pm", NULL, 0, 0555, pm_table},
> > -	{0}
> > +	{
> > +		.ctl_name	= CTL_PM,
> > +		.procname	= "pm",
> > +		.mode		= 0555,
> > +		.child		= pm_table,
> > +	},
> > +	{ .ctl_name = 0}
> >  };
> >  
> >  /*
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: gentoo baselayout 1.13 openvz modifications
Next Topic: [PATCH] :EXT[3, 4] jbd layer function called instead of fs specific one
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Sep 18 21:00:59 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06217 seconds