Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:57:15 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes. |
| |
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
| |