Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] rte_timer: fix invalid declaration of rte_timer_cb_t

["Wodkowski, PawelX" <pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:39 AM
> To: Wodkowski, PawelX; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] rte_timer: fix invalid declaration of
> rte_timer_cb_t
> 
> Hi Pawel,
> 
> On 02/23/2015 03:09 PM, Pawel Wodkowski wrote:
> > Declaration for function pointer should be
> > typedef ret_type (*type_name)(args...)
> > not
> > typedef ret_type (type_name)(args...)
> >
> > although compiler treat both of them the same, the static analysis tool
> > like klocwork complain about that.
> 
> Can you give some details about the reason why klocwork is
> complaining?
> 
> Looking at the C11 standard, it seems that this syntax is
> legal. Please see EXAMPLE 4, page 156 of:
> http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1570.pdf
> 

Legal, might be. Problem is in using it. In struct rte_timer field 'f' if
declared as pointer to rte_timer_cb_t but  __rte_timer_reset() expects
rte_timer_cb_t. This have a little impact to real code but it is inconsistent
with declaration, definition and rest of the library where first syntax is used.
There are some places where second declaration is used but its usage there
is consistent with declaration.

I looked at the code in rest of library and for consistency I changed
typedef rather than function declaration.

Pawel