Re: kcpuset(9) interface

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> >> why did you change kcpuset_t to a pointer from a structure?
> >> i always feel awkward to compare an opaque type with NULL.
> > 
> > The reason is that kcpuset_t now points directly to the bit field rather
> > than opaque struct kcpuset_impl.  Do you prefer wrapping, e.g. like
> > this:
> > 
> > struct kcpuset { uint32_t bitfield[0]; };
> > 
> > Except this is not C99..
> 
> is it necessary to expose the fact that it's an array to the API users?
> if it isn't, a dummy structure tag should just work.

I have committed the patch.  Used a dummy struct kcpuset tag.  Are you
okay with that?

> btw, on second thought, i think it might be worth to allow kcpuset_t be
> just a scalar type and avoid dynamic allocations for ports which can't
> have large MAXCPUS.  in that case, we should somehow abstract NULL
> comparisons.

-- 
Mindaugas