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

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 17:05, Paul Jackson wrote:
>  P.S. - Perhaps you real concern here is that I'm not going far enough.
> 
> 	Instead of just putting the cpumask_t internals on a diet
> 	and allowing for a nodemask_t that shares implementation,
> 	rather I should change both outright, to the more explicit
> 	style that is perhaps what you have in mind:
> 
> 	    struct cpumap { DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, NR_CPUS); };
> 	    struct cpumask s, d1, d2;
> 	    bitmap_or(s.bits, d1.bits, d2.bits);
> 
> 	Nuke cpumask_t, nodemask_t and the existing cpus_or,
> 	nodes_or, ... and similar such 60 odd various macros
> 	specific to these two types.
> 
> 	I rather like that approach.  It would build nicely on
> 	what I've done so far.  It would be a more intrusive patch,
> 	changing all declarations and operations on cpumasks.

Yes,  this is exactly the point I was incoherently groping towards. 
Throw away mask.h, and make any needed enhancements to bitmap.h (eg.
inlines which check for the case of len <= BITS_PER_LONG).

Then change cpumask_t and nodemask_t ops to inlines which just use
bitmap.h, and get rid of the
asm-generic/cpumask_optimized_for_large_smp_with_sparse_array_and_small_stack.h etc. and then finally look at how ugly it would be to change users to directly using the bitmap.h functions on cpumasks.

> 	If I thought it would sell, I would be most interested.

I guess I'd like to see the cost of perfection.  It could just be that
the current cpumask_t headers creep me out...

Thanks!
Rusty.
-- 
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell