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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers