Re: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put_link() and cookies

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Just to make sure - that does include 13/13, presumably?

Ugh, no, I had set that aside and then forgot all about it.

I'm not sure about 13/13.  I'm ok with it, but I'm not sure it's any
less confusing than the cookie was.

I like how it removes "put_link()" as a callback, but at the same time
I think it's even more abstract than the cookie was.

The main worry I have is that the naming is generic, but there's only
a single very specialized use for it. Do we expect other uses?

Because if not, I think it would be clearer if it was named to be more
concretely about putlink, and avoid the fact that it feels very
abstract.

Don't get me wrong - abstract generalized helper functions are cool.
But people aren't very abstract, and it tends to make for confusing
code when you aren't intimately familiar with the rules.

                 Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux