[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061202181957.GK3078@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:19:57 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 07:06:43PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 09:02 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 03:45:12PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > What's the cruft ?
> > >
> > > struct bla = container_of(timer, struct bla, timer); ???
> >
> > That's it, right there. Any idea how much we've bloated the kernel with
> > sysfs, just by insisting that the struct device not be the first item in
> > the struct? There's any number of 2- and 3- line functions calling each
> > other, each adding and subtracting constants from the pointers passed to
> > them. This was a huge mistake, IMO.
>
> What a nonsense.
>
> foo->timer.data = foo;
>
> is complete redundant information.
>
> This is going to make a lot of data structures smaller, when the
> timer_list is embedded in the structure itself and for the lot, which
> ignores the timer callback argument anyway.
container_of => still lousy type safety. All over the sodding place.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists