On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > The other alternative has real _practical_ value in almost every case,
> > > > which I very much prefer. What's wrong with that?
> > >
> > > Lack of any type safety whatsoever, magic boilerplates in callback instances,
> > > rules more complex than "your callback should take a pointer, don't cast
> > > anything, it's just a way to arrange for a delayed call, nothing magical
> > > needed"?
> >
> > I admit the compile check in SETUP_TIMER() is clever, but this way all the
> > magic is in this place and is it really worth it? You're only adding _one_
> > extra typecheck for mostly simple cases anyway.
>
> Well, there are so many of these simple changes, that SETUP_TIMER()
> with its clever trick looks very useful.
I agree with Al, Matthew and Pavel. The current timer stuff is a pita
and needs fixing, and it seems Al has come up with a good way to do it
without adding additional crap into every single user of timers.
There *are* times when having the additional space for storing a pointer
is cheaper (in terms of number of bytes) than code to calculate an offset,
and those who have read the assembly code probably know this all too well.
Al - I look forward to your changes.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
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]
