lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-04 18:25    [W:0.197 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site