From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] hrtimer: remove data field
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:22:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060213232237.GA25449@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0602132213270.30994@scrub.home>
* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > The nanosleep cleanup allows to remove the data field of hrtimer. The
> > > callback function can use container_of() to get it's own data. Since
> > > the hrtimer structure is usually embedded in other structures, the
> > > code also becomes a bit simpler.
> >
> > i addressed this when you first raised this issue (back in the ktimers
> > flamewars), and generally the feeling of people i asked was that doing
> > the container_of() approach is less readable than an explicit 'data'
> > field. It also deviates from struct timer_list, which we wanted to stay
> > close to. Furthermore, for standalone hrtimers this creates the need to
> > generate a wrapper structure. So i dont really like this change - but no
> > strong feelings either way.
>
> With the complete size reduction struct hrtimer becomes 32 bytes on 32
> bits archs and so we can fit the basic hrtimer into one or two cache
> lines. container_of() is becoming more and more common in the kernel,
> so I don't know who asked, it's not that difficult to use. I agree it
> makes simple test modules a bit more difficult, but so far the more
> common case is that this structure is embedded in other structures and
> container_of() creates simpler code. Additionally you get type
> checking for free, which you don't get with a void pointer.
yeah, i agreed with you back then too. (in fact i raised doing the same
for timer_list, which is embedded in other structs quite frequently too,
but this thought didnt acquire much traction either.)
But clearly this is not a must-have item for 2.6.16.
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-13 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-13 1:11 Roman Zippel
2006-02-13 13:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-02-13 21:22 ` Roman Zippel
2006-02-13 23:22 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060213232237.GA25449@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome