Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety

[Pavel Machek]

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.
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/