On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:09:47 +0400, Nikita Danilov <[email protected]> wrote: > J.A. Magallon writes: > > [...] > > > > > Tell me what is the difference between: > > > > > > sbi = kmalloc(sizeof(*sbi), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!sbi) > > return -ENOMEM; > > sb->s_fs_info = sbi; > > memset(sbi, 0, sizeof(*sbi)); > > sbi->s_mount_opt = 0; > > sbi->s_resuid = EXT3_DEF_RESUID; > > sbi->s_resgid = EXT3_DEF_RESGID; > > > > and > > > > SuperBlock() : s_mount_opt(0), s_resuid(EXT3_DEF_RESUID), s_resgid(EXT3_DEF_RESGID) > > {} > > > > ... > > sbi = new SuperBlock; > > if (!sbi) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > apart that you don't get members initalized twice and get a shorter code :). > > The difference is that second fragment doesn't mention GFP_KERNEL, so > it's most likely wrong. Moreover it's shorter only because it places > multiple initializations on the same like, hence, contradicting > CodingStyle. > Well, you could always have sbi = new(GPF_KERNEL) SuperBlock; And CodingStyle was written for C. Just to make a thing clear: I'm not advocating to include C++ support in current kernel. I just say that the only valid argument is that 'KERNEL IS C', and interfacing C with C++ just would add bloat and errors. There is no technical argument to reject to write an OS kernel in C++. It would not be slower not more complicated, and it will be probably safer because it leaves less things (from thost you always _must_ do) to programmers memories. -- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()able!es> \ Software is like sex: werewolf!able!es \ It's better when it's free Mandriva Linux release 2006.1 (Cooker) for i586 Linux 2.6.16-jam9 (gcc 4.1.1 20060330 (prerelease)) #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- C++ pushback
- From: Gary Poppitz <[email protected]>
- Re: C++ pushback
- From: Martin Mares <[email protected]>
- Re: C++ pushback
- From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
- Re: C++ pushback
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: C++ pushback
- From: "J.A. Magallon" <[email protected]>
- Re: C++ pushback
- From: Nikita Danilov <[email protected]>
- C++ pushback
- Prev by Date: [RFC][PATCH] mpt fusion driver initialization failure fix
- Next by Date: Re: Compiling C++ modules
- Previous by thread: Re: C++ pushback
- Next by thread: Re: C++ pushback
- Index(es):
 |