On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:58:51AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > If the point is that fetch_config may start carrying new information, > > wouldn't we want to pass it as a whole down to display_state_init()? It > > might eventually want to see some of that other config, too. > > > > It's presumably academic for now, and it would not be too hard to change > > later if needed, so I don't know that it's worth a re-roll. I just found > > it especially funny here since the purpose of the patch is to treat the > > config struct as a single unit. > > Well, I decided against passing in the full configuration as it feels a > bit like a layering violation: the other code really is about the fetch > itself, while this code here is only about display logic. So passing in > the `fetch_config` felt weird to me, even more so because we continue to > only need that single value at the end of this series. I do see your > point though. > > Given that none of your other comments require a reroll I'll leave this > as-is for now. Thanks for your review! Yeah, I could see that line of thinking, as well. Leaving sounds good to me. And I think that was my only substantive comment on the whole series, so we can consider the whole reviewed-by: me. -Peff
