[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612022306360.1867@scrub.home>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 23:13:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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
Hi,
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
> > You need some more magic macros to access/modify the data field.
>
> Which is done bloody rarely. grep and you'll see... BTW, there are
> other reasons why passing struct timer_list * is wrong:
> * direct calls of the timer callback
Why should that be wrong?
> * callback being the same for two timers embedded into
> different structs
That's done bloody rarely as well.
> * see a timer callback, decide it looks better as a tasklet.
> What, need a different glue now?
What's wrong with changing the prototype? If you don't do it, the compiler
will complain about it anyway.
> Look, it's a delayed call. The less glue we need, the better - the
> rules are much simpler that way, so that alone means that we'll get
> fewer fsckups.
You have the glue in a different place, so what?
The other alternative has real _practical_ value in almost every case,
which I very much prefer. What's wrong with that?
bye, Roman
-
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