lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86: modify show_shared_cpu_map in intel_cacheinfo
    >>  I did an informal survey and you are right, the majority of references do use
    >> cpumask_scnprintf instead of cpulist_scnprintf. Maybe the later function was
    >> added later?

    My recollection is that I added cpulist_scnprintf later, yes.
    Looking at my email archives, I see the mask versions mentioned
    starting Feb 2004, and the list versions starting Aug 2004.

    My rule of thumb has been to use the mask style (00000000,0000ffff)
    for lower level interfaces, and the list style (0-15) for higher level
    interfaces.

    For long lists, the list style is easier for humans to read, but for
    one word masks, the mask style can be easier to read for -some-
    purposes and are more commonly used.

    If you throw enough user level software at them, the lists are no more
    or less difficult to form or parse. Hand coded C parsers are probably
    easier to write for the mask style, and might be closer to what low
    level (closer to the hardware) programmers expect.

    Certainly, a particular interface should not change once it goes public.

    Once picked for a new interface, I don't recall ever seeing any significant
    controversy over which one was picked. So another of my rules of thumb
    might apply here -- coders choice. He who writes the code gets to make
    the open choices.

    --
    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-31 19:59    [W:0.023 / U:92.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site