[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801191228.30363.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:28:29 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Ash Willis <ashwillis@...grammer.net>,
linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Makes lguest's irq handler typesafe
On Saturday 19 January 2008 10:12:33 Tejun Heo wrote:
> Type safety is good but I doubt this would be worth the complexity. It
> has some benefits but there's much larger benefit in keeping things in
> straight C. People know that functions take fixed types and are also
> familiar with the convention of passing void * for callback arguments.
> IMHO, staying in line with those common knowledges easily trumps having
> type checking on interrupt handler.
I sympathise with this argument, but I think just because people are familiar
with existing hacks shouldn't prevent improvement. I think the resulting
code is clearer and more readable.
Even in the implementation, the tricky part is the check_either_type() macro:
the rest is straight-forward.
> Also, how often do we see a bug where things go wrong because interrupt
> handler is given the wrong type of argument? Even when such bug
> happens, I doubt it can escape the developer's workstation if he/she is
> paying any attention to testing.
I agree this one is unlikely. But I am trying to spread type-safety more
widely (see previous kthread patches).
I like changing the kernel to make life simpler for developers. We don't do
enough of it.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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