Re: [PULL] typesafe callbacks for kthread and stop_machine

[Rusty Russell]

On Friday 01 August 2008 00:06:43 Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:52:35PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Just the two places I look after.  And this time the conglomerate patch
> > is included below for more random commentry.
>
> I must say I personally don't like the wrapper macros that you require
> for each function that uses this. A wrapper macro has a large impact
> on code readability because everyone following a call chain has
> to do an additional grep/open file etc. step. I have my doubts not having
> casts outweights that disadvantage.

Yes, but the benefits of using them everywhere is that they do become part of 
the landscape.  "Oh, that's a typesafe callback, OK".

If this were just about neatness, I'd share your doubts.  But I want to be 
able to change the type of a var and have the compiler complain when I hand 
it to a function which expects the old type.  This bit me a few months back, 
leading to this experiment.

> I know that gcc has this funky transparent union extension that
> glibc socket() uses to allow different address types without casts.
> It has the advantage of not needing wrapper macros. Any chance of
> using that instead? Or has that one been considered already and
> discarded?

That's aimed at a slightly different case, where the function knows what types 
it can get.  But that doesn't work for truly generic callbacks: the type is 
completely controlled by the caller. ie. we want to allow whatever type 
matches the arg.

Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
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/