[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080224.120337.42455896.xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:03:37 +0800 (CST)
From: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: hch@...radead.org, adobriyan@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality()
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality()
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:16:29 -0800
Message-ID: <20080223111629.4d8d2c7b.akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:37:31 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:27:10PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > > Use get_personality() can hide the task_struct internals a bit.
> > >
> > > ->personality is going to become something less trivial?
> > > Sorry, but you sound like C++ people writing tons of pointless get/set
> > > wrappers. And your get_personality() is worse -- C++ would write it as
> > >
> > > current->personality()
> > >
> > > and again, even here, it's immediately visible that current task is
> > > involved, not some other task.
> >
> > Yes, completely agreement. While I might have introduced this gem
> > back then it is entirely stupid if you think about it. Please send
> > patches to kill get_personality and just use current->personality
> > instead.
> >
>
> yup.
>
> We'll generally only add wrappers of this form if we need to provide
> alternative implementations, or if we expect that we shall do so in the
> future.
>
Ok. I will send a patch to remove it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists