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    [W:0.025 / U:32.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site