> I don't get it. Why the "void *" stuff? That is where I think the > real badness lies, and I agree we should not have that.
> But defining something like > typedef struct bus_dma_tag *bus_dma_tag_t; > would mean we could easily change what bus_dma_tag_t actually is, > keeping it opaque, while at the same time keeping the type checking. Um, no, you get the type checking only as long as "what [it] actually is" is a tagged type - a struct, union, or (I think; I'd have to check) enum. Make it (for example) a char *, or an unsigned int, and you lose much of the typechecking. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
