On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In that case I guess I'll have to add signed versions of the > > read_uint/write_uint methods. > > Yes, I looked at that, I found the interface somewhat unfortunate, it > would mean growing the struct with two more function pointers.
Is that really a big deal? We're talking about a structure that has a small number (<10 in the current tree) of instances per cgroup subsystem. > Perhaps a > read and write function with abstract data would be better suited. That > would allow for this and more. Sadly it looses type information. If the size of the struct cftype really became a problem, I think the cleanest way to fix it would be to have a union of the potential function pointers, and add a field to specify which one is in use. Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
