From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes. Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:57:15 +0900 Message-ID: <486E2C3B.6020603@gmail.com> References: <20080618170729.808539948@theryb.frec.bull.fr> <486C4515.1070007@gmail.com> <486CB051.5000507@fr.ibm.com> <486CF71F.5090405@gmail.com> <486DD650.3000804@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Linux Containers , Benjamin Thery , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.204.238]:48363 "EHLO qb-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753381AbYGDN5m (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:57:42 -0400 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id d8so631603qbc.37 for ; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:57:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? As we're very close to rc1 window, I think we can work out a solution here. The reason why I nack'd was because the change wouldn't take too much effort and I thought it could be done before -rc1. Unless you disagree with making tags static values, I'll try to write up a patch to do so. If you (and Greg) think the callback interface is better, we can merge the code as-is and update (or not) later. Thanks. -- tejun