[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 12:22:44PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> > the question is: which is more important, the type safety of a
> > container_of() [or type cast], which if we get it wrong produces a
> > /very/ trivial crash that is trivial to fix

The hell it is. You get wrong fields of a big struct read and modified.

Besides, I can show you fsckloads of cases when we do *NOT* pass a
pointer to struct the timer is embedded into. Some of them called directly
(and no, the thing they get as argument doesn't point to anything that
would contain a timer_list).

> > structure size all around the kernel? I believe the latter is more
> > important.
> Indeed yes.

Guys, please, look at actual users of that stuff.
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: 2006-12-06 01:27    [W:0.060 / U:3.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site