![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||