On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:37:36 +0100, Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > mask_out() would also imply that the common use case is to have all > > attributes in the group created and that you need to take action to > > have an attribute not created. > > Here you have a point. But James has a point too when he says: > | We basically want to show capability by which file is present. Currently, if you register an attribute group, all of the attributes will show up. I find it more intuitive to have to block some attributes explicitely if I want to have more control, but the original logic is fine with me as well, if most people prefer that :) > Anyway, /if/ the reverse logic is preferred, it shouldn't be called > "mask_out()" but rather "is_masked()" or "is_hidden()" or the like. Sure. is_masked() would be fine. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
