Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: add filter function to groups
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
       linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <47261F50.3050901@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
References: <1193671019.3383.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1193676852.2655.21.camel@lov.site>
	 <1193677071.3383.56.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <47261F50.3050901@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:12:33 -0500
Message-Id: <1193681553.3383.102.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 927
Lines: 31

On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> >> >  struct attribute_group {
> >> >  	const char		*name;
> >> > +	int			(*filter_show)(struct kobject *, int);
> 
> > Actually, it returns a true/false value indicating whether the given
> > attribute should be displayed.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 	int (*is_visible)(...);
> or
> 	bool (*shall_be_shown)(...);
> or
> 	bool (*should_be_displayed)(...);
> 
> or whatever, so that it indicates that this function merely answers a
> question, but doesn't filter nor show anything.

Actually, as long as it's descriptive, I really don't care about the
name.  Can we all agree on "is_visible"?

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/