From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality() Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:27:10 +0300 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:59:44PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote: > > From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] (Resend) Use get_personality() > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:14:03PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote: > > > > This patchset makes the macro get_personality function alike > > > > and teaches code to use get_personality() instead of explicit > > > > reference. > > > > > > > > [I am sorry if you've received multiple copied of this, since > > > > my git-send-email doesn't work well. ] > > > > > > Yes, but why? "current->personality" is way more understandable than > > > your macro because task subject to dereference is very visible. > > > > 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. > Can't get_personality() mean getting the personality of current task? Or you want a more generic macro like this? #define get_task_personality(tsk) ((tsk)->personality) No, that is _too_ generic. Look at the code, (nearly) all references to 'personality' are via 'current'. So get_personality() is enough. I am not a fan of C++, I know that sometimes the get/set method in C++ is really a bit pointless, but, of course, *not* all the times. Regards. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
