Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:03:25PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I
> > did not think it worth creating an inline function.
>
> Unless there are specific reasons like multi-type arg or breaking
> hellish definition order dependency, I think we're better off with
> inline functions, especially here, as the implementation will happily
> accept arguments of the wrong type.
>

It wont accept the wrong type since the this_cpu_* functions will do type
checking.

> > _t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the
> > variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear
> > distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues.
>
> The compiler can enforce that rule easily if the interface functions
> are properly typed.  I think it'd be far better to go with properly
> typed accessors with less unwieldy names.

What rule are we talking about? Accessors for what?

--
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/