[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1285887352.5137.34.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:55:52 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] genetlink: introduce pre_doit/post_doit hooks
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 08:51 +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
> > Come to think of it -- I could get away with a single pointer, since, if
> > both are assigned,
> >
> > user_ptr[0] == wiphy_to_rdev(((netdev *)user_ptr[1])->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy)
> >
> > but that's a lot of pointy things, and some functions only have the rdev
> > so it gets more complex. I think allowing two private pointers is a
> > decent compromise.
>
> Come to think of it -- if someone wanted to have a massive structure
> with 10 pointers and a set of random data structures, then they could
> easily create their priv struct and assign it to user_ptr[0], hence
> rendering my argument null and void.
Oh, well, I thought your argument was that it was arbitrary and not
really necessary :-)
Also, this rather cheap, it just needs a bit more stack space in a place
that isn't typically deeply nested. So if some protocol came around and
needed three pointers, I'd probably advocate just bumping it to three.
At some point I might draw a line (10 is probably too much).
But you're right, of course, they can just use the first one and put
something dynamically allocated into that, if really needed.
johannes
--
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