[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180424142304.GE26136@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:23:04 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: simplify procfs code for seq_file instances
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:57:50PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git proc_create
>
>
> I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
> all slightly difference, and people will add more. Seeing /proc interfaces
> doubled like this is painful.
Function overloading is totally unacceptable.
And I very much disagree with a tradeoff that keeps 5000 lines of
code vs a few new helpers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists