Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22]

[Nick Piggin]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 16:06, Paul Jackson wrote:
>
> > > You'll have covered about 300 of them.  I don't think a complete
> > > abstraction is actually required or desirable:
> >
> > I suspect we've hit on our first area of actual disagreement here.
> >
> > You observe that providing inline wrappers for the 5 most commonly
> > used cpumask macros would cover 300 of the 420 uses.  The other 23
> > or so macros are less commonly used.  Sounds about right ...
> >
> > I prefer to provide all 28 macros.  I don't see a cost, but do see
> > a gain.
>
>
> Because I believe one should *always* resist the urge to write
> infrastructure.  Wait until the users of your functionality gather out
> the front of your house with torches because they're all sick of the
> burden of using existing infrastructure.
>
> Really.
>
> I don't even want to learn 28 bitops primitives.  I certainly don't want
> to learn 28 nodemask and 28 cpumask primitives.

If they are all equivalent operations, it is a lot saner
than having some "common" half ot the API available to
your abstract type, isn't it?

Surely it would have to be all or nothing...
-
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/