From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes. Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:31:29 -0700 Message-ID: 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=us-ascii Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Linux Containers , Benjamin Thery , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Return-path: Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:59814 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754020AbYGDNl6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:41:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <486DD650.3000804@gmail.com> (Tejun Heo's message of "Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:50:40 +0900") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. 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. Eric