Hello.
David Brownell wrote:
Again, why "better"? Passing "void *" is generally considered worse
than passing values with types that the compiler can verify. People
I think your references to the "general practice" do not fit well in
this particualr case. Your use of container_of() basically nullifies the
benefit of the compiler's type checking
No. The container_of() is type checked.
I don't know how else to explain to you that all typechecking is in
vain if the client passes a copy of the "token" 'struct ata24_iface'
(which it may e.g. "cache" internally for quicker access).
Be it typed or untyped pointer that the client passes back to the
read()/write() methods, the code will only work correct if that's one
and the same pointer (or at least it's alias) that's passed to the
setup() callback.
because the driver's
read()/write() methods will only work correctly if passed the same
"token" as given to the client via the setup() callback -- same way as
if you were passing 'void *' pointing to 'struct at24_data' to setup()
along with 'struct at24_iface *'.
Right, and the compiler will prevent a lot of the stupid errors
people routinely make when juggling "void *" values instead of
ones with an actual type.
Like what? And please be more concentrated on this particular case
instead of appealing to the general practice.
I can't believe that in 2008 you're actually advocating use of
a "void *" pointer instead of a typed one.
I can't believe one can so "consistently" ignore his oppenent's
argumatation. Type checking will *not* avail you in this case. If you
fail to undestand this, it's not my problem.
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
