Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 2:00 am

On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:47 -0700, Mike Travis wrote:

I guess we have to stick the const into the typedef otherwise we get a
const pointer instead of a const array member, right?

In which case I much prefer the following names:

 cpumask_data_t  - value

 const_cpumask_t - pointer to constant value
 cpumask_t       - pointer to value


Don't you have to deal with allocation errors?


yuckery yuck yuck!


gah - at the very least you got the naming wrong, methinks the one
panic-ing should have panic in its name - if you really want to persist
with that variant.


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Wed Sep 10, 3:47 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 10, 3:53 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Wed Sep 10, 4:33 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 10, 10:21 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu Sep 11, 2:00 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Thu Sep 11, 8:04 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Rusty Russell, (Thu Sep 11, 9:55 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Fri Sep 12, 7:28 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Rusty Russell, (Fri Sep 12, 3:02 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Fri Sep 12, 3:50 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Sep 12, 3:58 pm)