lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr
    Hello, Christoph.

    On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:43:25PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > It wont accept the wrong type since the this_cpu_* functions will do type
    > checking.

    It should only accept cpumask_var_t but the macro version accepts
    anything that this_cpu_*() can handle.

    > > > _t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the
    > > > variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear
    > > > distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues.
    > >
    > > The compiler can enforce that rule easily if the interface functions
    > > are properly typed. I think it'd be far better to go with properly
    > > typed accessors with less unwieldy names.
    >
    > What rule are we talking about? Accessors for what?

    I meant that if the new accessors you're adding are proper inline
    functions, the compiler would be able to verify the specific type they
    should take. IOW, let's go for shorter name w/ stricter type
    checking.

    Thanks.

    --
    tejun


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-08-23 19:41    [W:3.271 / U:0.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site