[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Break out types from <linux/list.h> to <linux/list_types.h>.
On 7/2/2010 4:48 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:33:52PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On 7/2/2010 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> Why a new header file instead of linux/types.h?
>> I was working from analogy to kvm_types.h, mm_types.h, rwlock_types.h,
>> spinlock_types.h. My impression is that linux/types.h is generally for
>> basic (non-struct) types, with atomic_t/atomic64_t being added as
>> "almost non-struct types", and of course the historical exception of
>> "struct ustat", which has been there since the dawn of time (0.97 anyway).
> I think list_head, hlist_head and hlist_node qualify as "almost non-struct
> types", don't you? :-)

I see the smiley, but to reply seriously, the distinction I was making
was that atomic_t is really just an integer type, but with typing magic
to protect it from implicit conversion -- unlike list_head, which really
is a more complex type.

I suppose one could make a kind of "intent of the founders"
constitutional law-type argument suggesting that the presence of "struct
ustat" suggests more complex types are in fact appropriate in
<linux/types.h>. :-)

> I wouldn't mind seeing kvm_types.h, rwlock_types.h and spinlock_types.h
> merged into types.h, personally. They're all pretty fundamental kernel
> kind of types. It's a matter of taste, and I'm not particularly fussed
> one way or the other.

Somehow it's hard to see kvm_ioapic_redirect_entry on a par with size_t :-)

> I just object to the unnecessary creation of tiny files like this.
> Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the
> first place :-)

In any case, I think this either way is plausible, but in the absence of
more folks weighing in, I think "avoid adding a complex type to
<linux/types.h>" sounds more convincing to me than "avoid adding a new
tiny file", though I certainly do buy the latter argument.

Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-02 23:13    [W:0.055 / U:7.772 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site