[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <468D7EBD.7020103@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:29:01 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Veeraiyan, Ayyappan" <ayyappan.veeraiyan@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based
PCI Express adapters...
Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
>> Access to bitfields are not atomic within the machine int in which they
>> are stored... you need to "unpack" the values stored in bitfields, even
>> if they are single-bit bitfields.
>
> Which we do manually when we don't use bitfields. Again, conceptually,
> there is no difference.
Practically speaking -- there are differences.
The "manual" method hides nothing from the programmer, while use of
bitfields hides the lack of atomicity.
When you have programmers who make mistakes -- i.e. real humans -- these
things matter.
But overall, it is not any one detail that discourages use of bitfields;
it is the sum of all the reasons. Practical experience, compiler
technology, mistakes made (and not made), all point to avoiding bitfields.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists