From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S274985AbTHLCS7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:18:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S274987AbTHLCS7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:18:59 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:18170 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S274985AbTHLCS5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:18:57 -0400 Subject: Re: C99 Initialisers From: Robert Love To: CaT Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitor-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20030812020226.GA4688@zip.com.au> References: <20030812020226.GA4688@zip.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1060654733.684.267.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 (1.4.4-3) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:18:53 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:02, CaT wrote: > Is there any interest ins omeone 'fixing up' as many structs in the > kernel from the form: Yes, indeed, especially for 2.6. There has been a lot of work already in this direction -- not too much should be left. > And if so, what form should I feed it back in? Big patches? 1 patch > per file? 1 per dir? Whatever makes most sense. One per directory is probably OK for most things. > Main reaosn I'm asking is that it's slowly being done but isn't in > the janitor list of things to do yet. If it were I'd just do it. ;) It should be in the list. Convert GNU-style to C99-style. I think converting unnamed initializers to named initializers is a Good Thing, too. Robert Love