# Re: \[PATCH 12/15\] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes.

- List: netdev
- 3 messages, 3 authors
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2008/07/1120959/t

## Re: \[PATCH 12/15\] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes.

- From: Eric W. Biederman \<hidden\>
- Date: 2008-07-04 13:42:20 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2008/07/1120959.md

```text

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
```

## Re: \[PATCH 12/15\] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes.

- From: Tejun Heo \<hidden\>
- Date: 2008-07-04 13:57:55 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2008/07/1120972.md

```text
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
```

## Re: \[PATCH 12/15\] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes.

- From: Greg KH \<gregkh@suse.de\>
- Date: 2008-07-04 16:21:56 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2008/07/1121028.md

```text
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:57:15PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?

Sorry, Greg is walking out the door in 30 minutes for a much needed week
long vacation and can't look into this right now :(

I'll be able to review it next weekend, sorry for the delay.

greg k-h
```