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
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers