From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:44:13 +1000 Message-ID: <200810011044.14148.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <48E2506C.7000406@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mike Travis , Ingo Molnar , Yinghai Lu , David Miller , Alan.Brunelle-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org, rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , arjan-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org, Jack Steiner On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:46:59 Linus Torvalds wrote: > Quite frankly, I personally do hate typedefs that end up being pointers, > and used as pointers, without showing that in the source code. ... > I'm now a bit more leery about this whole thing just > because the typedef ends up hiding so much - it doesn't just hide the > basic type, it hides a very basic *code* issue. Yes, this is why my version of the rework moved away from typedefs, except for the special case of "cpumask_var_t" for stack vars where this trick is really desired. Everywhere else, the code becomes nice and clear: struct cpumask *. Cheers, Rusty.