On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 05:13:05PM +0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > I very much start to dislike the untyped "sysdata"... I much > > > rather have separate fields for the different uses (like a IOMMU > > > field) that aren't going to share ever. Possibly even typed, but > > > for IOMMU that may be tricky.... > > > > Could you elaborate on what you mean here? > > > > If you mean instead of hanging a pci_sysdata off of struct > > pci_bus, hang a 'void *iommu' and an 'int node' directly off of > > the pci_bus, > > yes that is what I mean. > > > that looks like a lot of churn (most architecture use sysdata as > > an opaque pointer to an arch specific structure) and bloat (you > > would > > it's only a few bytes per pci device/bus. not all that bad for > having something which involves splitting a shared pointer into > logical users. > > (and heck, if you really really are worried we could make it a union > for some of them, although that defeats the "split is safer" > benefit)
It's not just bloat and code churn, I also don't like teaching every architecture about every other architecture's use of sysdata, which is inherently architecture specific. I think the benefits of modularity here outweigh the benefits of a little type safety. Cheers, Muli - 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/
