Re: kcpuset(9) interface

[yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi)]

hi,

> 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?

looks good to me.  thanks.

YAMAMOTO Takashi

> 
>> 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