On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 08:51 +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: > > Come to think of it -- I could get away with a single pointer, since, if > > both are assigned, > > > > user_ptr[0] == wiphy_to_rdev(((netdev *)user_ptr[1])->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy) > > > > but that's a lot of pointy things, and some functions only have the rdev > > so it gets more complex. I think allowing two private pointers is a > > decent compromise. > > Come to think of it -- if someone wanted to have a massive structure > with 10 pointers and a set of random data structures, then they could > easily create their priv struct and assign it to user_ptr[0], hence > rendering my argument null and void. Oh, well, I thought your argument was that it was arbitrary and not really necessary :-) Also, this rather cheap, it just needs a bit more stack space in a place that isn't typically deeply nested. So if some protocol came around and needed three pointers, I'd probably advocate just bumping it to three. At some point I might draw a line (10 is probably too much). But you're right, of course, they can just use the first one and put something dynamically allocated into that, if really needed. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
