Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263636AbUDFGt3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:49:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263637AbUDFGt3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:49:29 -0400 Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.59]:48284 "HELO smtp015.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263636AbUDFGtZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:49:25 -0400 Message-ID: <407252F2.3090102@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:49:22 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@aracnet.com, akpm@osdl.org, wli@holomorphy.com, colpatch@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22] References: <20040329041253.5cd281a5.pj@sgi.com> <1081128401.18831.6.camel@bach> <20040405000528.513a4af8.pj@sgi.com> <1081150967.20543.23.camel@bach> <20040405010839.65bf8f1c.pj@sgi.com> <1081227547.15274.153.camel@bach> <20040405230601.62c0b84c.pj@sgi.com> <40724CF4.5090705@yahoo.com.au> <20040405233415.2c7c3a96.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040405233415.2c7c3a96.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1278 Lines: 40 Paul Jackson wrote: > Nick wrote: > >>I like cpumask_t. > > > Ok - one vote for cpumask_t. > > I could go either way. I see that 'struct foo' is more common than > 'foo_t' in kernel code. > > I will not actually propose to change cpumask_t to 'struct cpumask' > unless others want it. Without a half-way decent reason, it would just > be stupid churning. But I wouldn't put up much resistance to such a > change. > I think Linus likes keeping struct around if something is a collection of items both conceptually and in its usage. And prefers typedefs for things that are single entities outside their implementation. > > >>And you should not need to look inside it or use it with >>anything other than using the cpumask interface, right? > > > In my view, right - you (seldom) need to look inside. From what I can > make of Rusty's statements so far, he apparently has a different view ;). > I prefer your complete API. I don't think there is any point doing the abstraction at all if you only have half the API. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/