lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > > You need some more magic macros to access/modify the data field.
> >
> > Which is done bloody rarely. grep and you'll see... BTW, there are
> > other reasons why passing struct timer_list * is wrong:
> > * direct calls of the timer callback
>
> Why should that be wrong?

Need to arrange a struct timer_list?

> > * callback being the same for two timers embedded into
> > different structs
>
> That's done bloody rarely as well.
>
> > * see a timer callback, decide it looks better as a tasklet.
> > What, need a different glue now?
>
> What's wrong with changing the prototype? If you don't do it, the compiler
> will complain about it anyway.

How about "not having to change it at all"?

> > Look, it's a delayed call. The less glue we need, the better - the
> > rules are much simpler that way, so that alone means that we'll get
> > fewer fsckups.
>
> You have the glue in a different place, so what?

Where?

> 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"?
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-12-02 23:43    [W:1.372 / U:0.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site