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

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

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.