lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
Richard Gooch wrote:
> Yes, I can see the benefit of avoiding the NULL check. It would be
> nice to be able to do this. However, that would then require every
> driver to be updated on every addition of a new VFS method.

It's possible, in the NULL case, that the check is faster than the
function call to the default function.

> However, if there was some compiler trickery we could employ such that
> a VFS change doesn't require source code to be touched, it would be a
> good idea. Being able to strip those method existence tests would make
> code a bit more readable and would also save a few cycles. But I don't
> see how to do it without making drivers not distributed with the
> kernel much harder to maintain.

You're describing C++ virtual functions.

-- Jamie

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site