From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "Moore,
Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] ACPI: reduce code size, clean up, fix validator message
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:59:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060626195958.GB15038@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CFF307C98FEABE47A452B27C06B85BB6D8C286@hdsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
* Brown, Len <len.brown@intel.com> wrote:
> Keep in perspective, however, that we have over 200 functional issues
> unresolved in bugzilla.kernel.org, and spending time on syntax changes
> is generally a lower priority.
well, it's your baby and they are your priorities (and i'm really not
trying to interfere), but still - my personal experience is that syntax
and functional correctness are strongly connected. I dont claim that
this particular issue of lock initialization and abstraction is a big
deal in itself, but cruft does add up over time and becomes a real
obstacle. I usually spend alot of quality time cleaning up my own code,
because i know that it directly results in a better ability to improve,
extend or debug the code in the future. [ Then again, i dont write code
for 9 platforms :-) ]
( for example the ACPI practice of allocating opaque 'handler' pointers
that carry no type at [they are void *] is playing with fire. It in
essence disables the remaining little bit of type-safety that C has. )
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-26 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-26 17:39 [patch] ACPI: reduce code size, clean up, fix validator message Brown, Len
2006-06-26 19:59 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-06-26 21:58 Brown, Len
2006-06-26 20:42 Moore, Robert
2006-06-22 8:00 Brown, Len
2006-06-25 19:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-26 16:35 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-22 4:28 2.6.17-mm1 - possible recursive locking detected Brown, Len
2006-06-22 4:59 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-22 7:20 ` [patch] ACPI: reduce code size, clean up, fix validator message Ingo Molnar
2006-06-22 14:31 ` Michal Piotrowski
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=20060626195958.GB15038@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.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