On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:03:25PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I > > did not think it worth creating an inline function. > > Unless there are specific reasons like multi-type arg or breaking > hellish definition order dependency, I think we're better off with > inline functions, especially here, as the implementation will happily > accept arguments of the wrong type. >
It wont accept the wrong type since the this_cpu_* functions will do type checking. > > _t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the > > variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear > > distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues. > > The compiler can enforce that rule easily if the interface functions > are properly typed. I think it'd be far better to go with properly > typed accessors with less unwieldy names. What rule are we talking about? Accessors for what? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
