Message-ID: <4C6A37B3.70605@neli.hopto.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:18:11 +0200
From: Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@idt.com>
CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] RapidIO: Add switch-specific sysfs initialization
 callback
References: <1281712686-31308-1-git-send-email-alexandre.bounine@idt.com> <1281712686-31308-7-git-send-email-alexandre.bounine@idt.com> <4C692E4C.4040300@neli.hopto.org> <0CE8B6BE3C4AD74AB97D9D29BD24E552011D5FFC@CORPEXCH1.na.ads.idt.com>
In-Reply-To: <0CE8B6BE3C4AD74AB97D9D29BD24E552011D5FFC@CORPEXCH1.na.ads.idt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 862
Lines: 18

Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
>> Why not make a sw_sysfs_create and sw_sysfs_remove? Is better for
>> readability. Now you call 'sw_sysfs(dev, 0)' or 'sw_sysfs(dev, 1)';
> 
> I just do not want to have an extra member here. Not every switch will
> require own sysfs attributes, but every switch will be presented by a
> data structure. Based on its intended use I do not see any problem here.

It's not problematic, but personally I find function calls that pass 0 
or 1 as an argument hard to read. Likewise for boolean parameters. An 
alternative would be to have defines SW_SYSFS_CREATE etc. It's a minor item.

Micha
--
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/