On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 20:30 +0530, Abhishek Sagar wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 4:21 AM, Jim Keniston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2. Simplify the task of correlating data (e.g., timestamps) between
> > function entry and function return.
>
> Would adding of data and len fields in ri help? Instead of "pouching"
> data in one go at registration time, this would let user handlers do
> the allocation
Yes and no. Adding just a data field -- void*, or maybe unsigned long
long so it's big enought to accommodate big timestamps -- would be a big
improvement on your current proposal. That would save the user the
drudgery of mapping the ri pointer to his/her per-instance data.
There's plenty of precedent for passing "private_data" values to
callbacks.
I don't think a len field would help much. If such info were needed, it
could be stored in the data structure pointed to by the data field.
I still don't think "letting [i.e., requiring that] user handlers do the
allocation" is a win. I'm still interested to see how this plays out in
real examples.
> and allow them to use different kinds of data
> structures per-instance.
I haven't been able to think of any scenarios where this would be
useful. A "data pouch" could always contain a union, FWIW.
>
> - Abhishek Sagar
Jim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
