Re: [PATCH] mask ADT: new mask.h file [2/22]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, 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, 06 Apr 2004 16:49:22 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <407252F2.3090102@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040405233415.2c7c3a96.pj@sgi.com>

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> 
>>I like cpumask_t. 
> 
> 
> Ok - one vote for cpumask_t.
> 
> I could go either way.  I see that 'struct foo' is more common than
> 'foo_t' in kernel code.
> 
> I will not actually propose to change cpumask_t to 'struct cpumask'
> unless others want it.  Without a half-way decent reason, it would just
> be stupid churning.  But I wouldn't put up much resistance to such a
> change.
> 

I think Linus likes keeping struct around if something is
a collection of items both conceptually and in its usage.
And prefers typedefs for things that are single entities
outside their implementation.

> 
> 
>>And you should not need to look inside it or use it with
>>anything other than using the cpumask interface, right?
> 
> 
> In my view, right - you (seldom) need to look inside.  From what I can
> make of Rusty's statements so far, he apparently has a different view ;).
> 

I prefer your complete API. I don't think there is any point
doing the abstraction at all if you only have half the API.