Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:49:22 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22] |
| |
Paul Jackson wrote: > Nick wrote: > >>I like cpumask_t. > > > Ok - one vote for cpumask_t. > > I could go either way. I see that 'struct foo' is more common than > 'foo_t' in kernel code. > > I will not actually propose to change cpumask_t to 'struct cpumask' > unless others want it. Without a half-way decent reason, it would just > be stupid churning. But I wouldn't put up much resistance to such a > change. >
I think Linus likes keeping struct around if something is a collection of items both conceptually and in its usage. And prefers typedefs for things that are single entities outside their implementation.
> > >>And you should not need to look inside it or use it with >>anything other than using the cpumask interface, right? > > > In my view, right - you (seldom) need to look inside. From what I can > make of Rusty's statements so far, he apparently has a different view ;). >
I prefer your complete API. I don't think there is any point doing the abstraction at all if you only have half the API. - 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/
| |