From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758352AbZBMLsU (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:48:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751420AbZBMLsJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:48:09 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36996 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751363AbZBMLsI (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:48:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:47:55 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: more header untangling Message-ID: <20090213114755.GH15679@elte.hu> References: <4991D626.5040009@goop.org> <20090211100323.GE20518@elte.hu> <49930485.3070204@goop.org> <20090211171439.GA9185@elte.hu> <49931F04.80605@goop.org> <20090211194719.GA25968@elte.hu> <49935287.3000504@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49935287.3000504@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Another possibility would be to make a further distinction between >> 'local methods' and 'compound methods'. Local methods are the ones that >> only relate to a given >> data type. Compound methods combine multiple types. We could allow >> local methods in type headers, and forbid compound methods. >> > > Yes, that's pretty much the approach I've been taking. Particularly > since these little helper functions are smoothing over a given type > being defined in different ways in different environments (the types > themselves are different, but the types of the functions operating on > them are the same). ok, cool, no disagreements then. Your point about the type being standardized by the helpers is important, i missed that aspect. Ingo