elmer@ylenurme.ee (Elmer Joandi) wrote on 16.04.00 in <38F909E8.1E082827@ylenurme.ee>:
> Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > %d for public root-changeable int
> > %?d if root can only read
> > %0d if mortals can't read
> > %?0d for both
> and then %#$!!+$$ for something deep rude.
For what use? There are only the four options.
> Why can't struct net_device and other
> few hundred to thousand different
> non-performace sensitive structures
> in kernel just have:
>
> Simple virutal method table
> aka metadata table pointer
> describing value-fields,
> methods, substructures,
> access methods, permissions
>
> in them, for example ?
Because that would be far more code?
> Why to create just another messy interface
> for which the code must be: created, changed
> converted, transported, compiled, loaded,
> maintained and thrown out ?
I don't know, why *do* you propose one such?
> PLeez, do it the way, that if I want to use it
> in device driver, then I could be real sure
> that I never need to rewrite my code.
That's exactly what the %d proposal seeks to do, yes.
> And, next innovative people playing with
> every kind of interfaces, should not be waiting
> on me and hundreds of other device driver
> writers to do some consistent and covering-it-all
> great stuff.
How would we get at the data without the driver writer creating an
interface to the data? Impossible. At least *this* interface is *far*
simpler than the one you propose.
MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:09 EST