Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:59:32 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if.c route.c rtsock.c Message-ID: <xzpad1c7yuj.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040416040536.A22418@xorpc.icir.org> (Luigi Rizzo's message of "Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:36 -0700") References: <200404160814.i3G8EYpj071288@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040416090520.GA1194@FreeBSD.org> <20040416023457.A12665@xorpc.icir.org> <xzpisg08a7g.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040416040536.A22418@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> writes: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:54:11PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > > Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > ifaddr_byindex() is already a macro, so i'd rather not have the > > > double indirection. > > What difference does it make? > it is two different ways of getting the same info, which is > precisely what i was trying to remove in the first place. No, my question was: what difference does an extra level of indirection make? It is resolved at compile time, so there is no run-time overhead. If it makes the code simpler and more obvious, it's a good thing. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpad1c7yuj.fsf>