Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:41:47 -0800 | Subject | Re: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put_link() and cookies | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > Just to make sure - that does include 13/13, presumably?
Ugh, no, I had set that aside and then forgot all about it.
I'm not sure about 13/13. I'm ok with it, but I'm not sure it's any less confusing than the cookie was.
I like how it removes "put_link()" as a callback, but at the same time I think it's even more abstract than the cookie was.
The main worry I have is that the naming is generic, but there's only a single very specialized use for it. Do we expect other uses?
Because if not, I think it would be clearer if it was named to be more concretely about putlink, and avoid the fact that it feels very abstract.
Don't get me wrong - abstract generalized helper functions are cool. But people aren't very abstract, and it tends to make for confusing code when you aren't intimately familiar with the rules.
Linus
| |