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

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:

> > You need some more magic macros to access/modify the data field.
> 
> Which is done bloody rarely.  grep and you'll see...  BTW, there are
> other reasons why passing struct timer_list * is wrong:
> 	* direct calls of the timer callback

Why should that be wrong?

> 	* callback being the same for two timers embedded into
> different structs

That's done bloody rarely as well.

> 	* see a timer callback, decide it looks better as a tasklet.
> What, need a different glue now?

What's wrong with changing the prototype? If you don't do it, the compiler 
will complain about it anyway.

> Look, it's a delayed call.  The less glue we need, the better - the
> rules are much simpler that way, so that alone means that we'll get
> fewer fsckups.

You have the glue in a different place, so what?
The other alternative has real _practical_ value in almost every case, 
which I very much prefer. What's wrong with that?

bye, Roman
-
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/