Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:28:18 -0300 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface |
| |
Roman Zippel wrote: > Yes, and now compare how the solutions differ when the data is static and > when it's allocated.
Do they ? Even if the data is static, it can become invalid (in the sense that accessing it from a callback would lead to some kind of undesirable behaviour, even though the access itself would work), so I don't quite see why the difference would matter.
Example:
static ... common_callback(...) { switch (my_state) { ... } }
... my_state = A; register_fancy_timer_A(&me_A,common_callback); ... unregister_fancy_timer_A(&me_A); my_state = B; /* stray fancy_timer_A call to common_callback would trigger action for state B */ ... register_fancy_timer_B(&me_B,common_callback); ...
Depending on "my_state", the callback would perform different actions. (The "fancy timers" would be some timer-like service that doesn't del_timer_sync.)
This is getting to abstract. Why don't you just say where you see the difference ? :-)
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |