Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753451AbYGDWB4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:01:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752527AbYGDWBn (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:01:43 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:40087 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752445AbYGDWBm (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:01:42 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Linux Containers , Benjamin Thery , netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <20080618170729.808539948@theryb.frec.bull.fr> <486CB051.5000507@fr.ibm.com> <486CF71F.5090405@gmail.com> <486DD650.3000804@gmail.com> <486E2C3B.6020603@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:00:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <486E2C3B.6020603@gmail.com> (Tejun Heo's message of "Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:57:15 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.130.11.59 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Tejun Heo X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes. X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2053 Lines: 40 Tejun Heo writes: > 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? The misuse argument is small because currently all users must be compiled into the kernel and must add to the static enumeration. I'm afraid we are making the facility over general for the problem at hand. > 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. Making a change and pushing down into the patches is much more time intensive then I would like. The last round of changes simple as they were took something between 16 and 30 hours, and has left me sapped. Keeping all of the other pieces in flight in all of the other patches so I can't just focus on the change at hand is what makes it difficult at this point. Adding an additional patch on top isn't too bad, but my creativity is sapped on this right now. I agree that a function called device_rename isn't the best possible name when we are changing tags, but I can't think of anything that seems better. I know in the users that the tags are already quite static and that I call kobject_rename in the one case where they change (which is a significant exception). So that part doesn't concern me as I have not intention of using the interface like that. Ultimately I don't care as long as we have code that works. Eric -- 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/