Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:09:39 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Please review - header cleanups Message-ID: <200104201408.f3KE83w16255@gratis.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104200718080.12888-100000@besplex.bde.org> ; from Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:35:24 %2B1000." References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104200718080.12888-100000@besplex.bde.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Said Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>:
> > Ok so this would be a header with only the "struct mtx { ... };" in it,
> > and it would be included in all the headers that need to know the size
> > and shape of struct mtx (including sys/mutex.h)?
>
> ---
> diff -c2 mutex_types.h~ mutex_types.h
[ snippage of patches ]
> This removes all the nested includes of <sys/mutex.h> except the one in
> <sys/buf.h> (the inline functions there should probably not be inline).
> It only removes a couple of nested includes of <sys/lock.h> (ones related
> to <sys/mutex.h>).
Nice! :-) This is an excellent base to work off. Thanks!
> LINT compiles after adding includes of <sys/mutex.h> (and sometimes
> <sys/lock.h>) to "only" about 50 .c files. Many more probably depend
> on the pollution in <sys/buf.h> :-(. About 1/2 of the 50 really should
> include <sys/mutex.h>. The others mostly use the PROC_* locking macros
> in <sys/proc.h> these expand to mtx_lock(), etc. mtx_lock() is another
> macro so it can't just be declared. It needs the MPASS() macros from
> <sys/lock.h>, so everything that uses the PROC_* macros needs both
> <sys/mutex.h> and <sys/lock.h>.
Eeew.
> > > 2) Do the same things as are done for size_t: define a macro that declares
> > > `struct mtx' in a not so tiny secondary header; include this header and
> > > expand it as necessary. This is uglier than (1), but doesn't require
> > > so many headers.
> >
> > I think I prefer 1).
>
> I've put 2 structs in <sys/mutex_types.h> to test things quickly. Strictly,
> struct lock_object belongs in a header by itself.
So making a <sys/lock_types.h> seems to be on the cards.
> > ONE header to declare _all_/lots_of the "internal" structures? Hmmm...
>
> See glibc or stddef.h under contrib/gcc. The __need_foo_t stuff selects
> the types that will be declared. Ugly, isn't it.
Eeew. :-( Now I need a drink... (please don't show be code like
that again without warning me!)
Seriously - I think I have a pretty good idea now on how to do
this. I'll come up with a new patch, and see if I can do something
about the PROC_*/mutex entanglement.
How bad does a <sys/proc_macros.h> sound?
How bad does any <*/*_macros.h> sound (for both macros and inline
code) where the header contains approximately _only_ executable
stuff as opposed to "pure" declarations?
M
--
Mark Murray
Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104201408.f3KE83w16255>