Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:55:17 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22] |
| |
Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 16:06, Paul Jackson wrote: > >>>You'll have covered about 300 of them. I don't think a complete >>>abstraction is actually required or desirable: >> >>I suspect we've hit on our first area of actual disagreement here. >> >>You observe that providing inline wrappers for the 5 most commonly >>used cpumask macros would cover 300 of the 420 uses. The other 23 >>or so macros are less commonly used. Sounds about right ... >> >>I prefer to provide all 28 macros. I don't see a cost, but do see >>a gain. > > > Because I believe one should *always* resist the urge to write > infrastructure. Wait until the users of your functionality gather out > the front of your house with torches because they're all sick of the > burden of using existing infrastructure. > > Really. > > I don't even want to learn 28 bitops primitives. I certainly don't want > to learn 28 nodemask and 28 cpumask primitives. >
If they are all equivalent operations, it is a lot saner than having some "common" half ot the API available to your abstract type, isn't it?
Surely it would have to be all or nothing... - 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/
| |