From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@aracnet.com, akpm@osdl.org,
wli@holomorphy.com, colpatch@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22]
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:02:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040406000213.119df23b.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1081233543.15274.190.camel@bach>
Rusty wrote:
> Agreed. That's a big benefit of cutting it out altogether.
And if it wasn't that this would result in requiring every call to
specify the number of bits, resulting in one more chance for a stupid
error, and one less for type checking, I'd vote to remove
cpumask_t/nodemask_t, as I understand you would prefer.
One should resist infrastructure if one can nuke a layer entirely.
But half-baked layers introduce one more form of difficult to
remember inconsistency.
Hmmm ...
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-06 7:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-29 12:12 [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22] Paul Jackson
2004-03-30 0:30 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-03-30 0:27 ` Paul Jackson
2004-03-30 1:56 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-03-30 0:47 ` Paul Jackson
2004-03-30 1:53 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-03-30 2:06 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-03-30 1:31 ` Paul Jackson
2004-03-30 1:27 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-03-30 1:27 ` Paul Jackson
2004-03-30 6:38 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-03-30 8:45 ` Paul Jackson
2004-03-30 10:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-03-31 0:16 ` Ray Bryant
2004-03-31 0:14 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-03-30 2:07 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-04-01 0:38 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-04-01 0:58 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-01 1:11 ` Matthew Dobson
2004-04-01 1:18 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-01 1:27 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-01 1:35 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-05 1:26 ` Rusty Russell
2004-04-05 7:05 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-05 7:42 ` Rusty Russell
2004-04-05 8:08 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 4:59 ` Rusty Russell
2004-04-06 6:06 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 6:23 ` Nick Piggin
2004-04-06 6:34 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 6:49 ` Nick Piggin
2004-04-06 6:59 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 7:08 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 7:03 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-04-06 7:33 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 6:39 ` Rusty Russell
2004-04-06 6:45 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 7:24 ` Rusty Russell
2004-04-06 7:34 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 10:40 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-07 0:02 ` Rusty Russell
2004-04-07 1:49 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-07 3:55 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 6:55 ` Nick Piggin
2004-04-06 7:34 ` Paul Jackson
2004-04-06 7:02 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2004-04-05 7:46 ` Paul Jackson
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=20040406000213.119df23b.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).