On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > The other alternative has real _practical_ value in almost every case, > > > > which I very much prefer. What's wrong with that? > > > > > > Lack of any type safety whatsoever, magic boilerplates in callback > > > instances, > > > rules more complex than "your callback should take a pointer, don't cast > > > anything, it's just a way to arrange for a delayed call, nothing magical > > > needed"? > > > > I admit the compile check in SETUP_TIMER() is clever, but this way all the > > magic is in this place and is it really worth it? You're only adding _one_ > > extra typecheck for mostly simple cases anyway. > > Well, there are so many of these simple changes, that SETUP_TIMER() > with its clever trick looks very useful.
I agree with Al, Matthew and Pavel. The current timer stuff is a pita and needs fixing, and it seems Al has come up with a good way to do it without adding additional crap into every single user of timers. There *are* times when having the additional space for storing a pointer is cheaper (in terms of number of bytes) than code to calculate an offset, and those who have read the assembly code probably know this all too well. Al - I look forward to your changes. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
