[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety
    On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > Hi!
    > > > > The other alternative has real _practical_ value in almost every case,
    > > > > which I very much prefer. What's wrong with that?
    > > >
    > > > Lack of any type safety whatsoever, magic boilerplates in callback instances,
    > > > rules more complex than "your callback should take a pointer, don't cast
    > > > anything, it's just a way to arrange for a delayed call, nothing magical
    > > > needed"?
    > >
    > > I admit the compile check in SETUP_TIMER() is clever, but this way all the
    > > magic is in this place and is it really worth it? You're only adding _one_
    > > extra typecheck for mostly simple cases anyway.
    > Well, there are so many of these simple changes, that SETUP_TIMER()
    > with its clever trick looks very useful.

    I agree with Al, Matthew and Pavel. The current timer stuff is a pita
    and needs fixing, and it seems Al has come up with a good way to do it
    without adding additional crap into every single user of timers.

    There *are* times when having the additional space for storing a pointer
    is cheaper (in terms of number of bytes) than code to calculate an offset,
    and those who have read the assembly code probably know this all too well.

    Al - I look forward to your changes.

    Russell King
    Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux -
    maintainer of:
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-12-03 12:29    [W:0.022 / U:41.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site