Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:12:00 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes. |
| |
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:57:15PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Eric. > > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Thank you for your opinion. > > > > Incremental patches to make things more beautiful are welcome. > > > > Please remember we are not building lisp. The goal is code that works today. > > > > Since we are not talking about correctness of the code. Since we are not > > talking about interfaces with user space. Since we are talking something > > that is currently about 100 lines of code, and so will be easy to change > > even after it is merged. I don't understand how discussing this further > > is useful. Especially when I get a NAK based on the feel that the code > > is ugly. > > I'm sorry if I gave you the impression of being draconian. Explanations > below. > > > As for your main objection. Adding a accessor method to an object versus > > adding a data field that contain the same thing. The two are effectively > > identical. With the practical difference in my eyes that an accessor method > > prevents data duplication which reduces maintenance and reduces skew problems, > > and it keeps the size of struct kobject small. Since you think methods are > > horrible I must respectfully disagree with you. > > Yeah, it seems we should agree to disagree here. I think using callback > for static values is a really bad idea. It obfuscates the code and > opens up a big hole for awful misuses. Greg, what do you think?
Sorry, Greg is walking out the door in 30 minutes for a much needed week long vacation and can't look into this right now :(
I'll be able to review it next weekend, sorry for the delay.
greg k-h
| |