Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2003 05:18:11 +0100 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: Flaw in the driver-model implementation of attributes |
| |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:44:50PM -0700, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> Maybe this is going to kill my argument as an analogy, but think > about a C++ class hierarchy, where belonging to a class means > to inherit that class' methods. When an object is instantiated > and its class inherits a lot of other classes, it inherits all > the methods of those classes. Your methods are the attrs, and > you can access them with the same pointer, you don't need to > look somewhere else ...
But there is no inheritance here. Block device and IDE disk are different objects and relation is not "A is B with <...>", it's "among other things, A happens to use B in a way <...>".
Moreover, there is no such thing as "physical device of that block device". There might be many. There might be none. IOW, we have a bunch of constructors for class "block device" and some of them happen to have some kinds of physical devices among their arguments. That's it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |