On Wednesday 24 March 2010, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 03/24/2010 09:33 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Tue 2010-03-23 17:17:34, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> Some code, which will be moved out of swap.c, needs know nothing about > >> swap. There will be also other than swap writers later, so that it > >> won't make sense at all. > >> > >> Make it a global static in swap.c as a singleton. > > > > I guess I just dislike global static. Logically, methods do operate on > > handles, so... > > Ok, "upper layers" may get a handle via .get_reader/writer. The downside > is that they would have to get (void *) and pass (void *) down again. I > wanted to avoid that (taking into account that it's a singleton). > > > I don't see a point and I do not think the change is an improvement. > > The point was to avoid (void *)'s and save users from transferring > pointer as a handle. No matter what, the decision is not up to me, > discussion indeed welcome. The whole thing boils down to whether or not there may be more than one swap map in use at a time. Perhaps it's better to use a static pointer, though? And I don't really know at this point how exactly this change is going to make your life easier down the road. Care to elaborate? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
