lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality()
    From
    From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality()
    Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:27:10 +0300
    Message-ID: <20080223092710.GD2262@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>

    > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:59:44PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
    > > From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
    > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality()
    >
    > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:14:03PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
    > > > > This patchset makes the macro get_personality function alike
    > > > > and teaches code to use get_personality() instead of explicit
    > > > > reference.
    > > > >
    > > > > [I am sorry if you've received multiple copied of this, since
    > > > > my git-send-email doesn't work well. ]
    > > >
    > > > Yes, but why? "current->personality" is way more understandable than
    > > > your macro because task subject to dereference is very visible.
    > >
    > > Use get_personality() can hide the task_struct internals a bit.
    >
    > ->personality is going to become something less trivial?
    > Sorry, but you sound like C++ people writing tons of pointless get/set
    > wrappers. And your get_personality() is worse -- C++ would write it as
    >
    > current->personality()
    >
    > and again, even here, it's immediately visible that current task is
    > involved, not some other task.
    >

    Can't get_personality() mean getting the personality of current task?

    Or you want a more generic macro like this?

    #define get_task_personality(tsk) ((tsk)->personality)

    No, that is _too_ generic. Look at the code, (nearly) all references to
    'personality' are via 'current'. So get_personality() is enough.

    I am not a fan of C++, I know that sometimes the get/set method in C++
    is really a bit pointless, but, of course, *not* all the times.

    Regards.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-23 11:05    [W:0.021 / U:30.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site