On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:18:02AM +0800, Liang Chen wrote:
> But as you pointed out, explicit casting is still bad too (was hoping it can
> be
> considered less bad at this situation). I will think of a better idea
> to handle this
> issue unless people agree that the current behaviour is safe.
I had the same feeling, and was reluctant to do so. The reason for making this
change was that current code implicitly converts work_func_t to closure_fn, and
it also depends on the offset and size of a few struct not being changed. So the
patch was introduced essentially to solve that, and keep th
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:53:19PM +0800, Liang Chen wrote:
> The use of the union reduces the size of closure struct by taking advantage
> of the current size of its members. The offset of func in work_struct equals
> the size of the first three members, so that work.work_func will just
> referenc
The use of the union reduces the size of closure struct by taking advantage
of the current size of its members. The offset of func in work_struct equals
the size of the first three members, so that work.work_func will just
reference the forth member - the pointer to closure_fn.
This is smart but d
4 matches
Mail list logo
