On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 02:15:35 +0200 Federico Vaga <federico.v...@vaga.pv.it> wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 12:29:35 AM CEST Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:31:18 +0200 > > > > Federico Vaga <federico.v...@vaga.pv.it> wrote: > > > show_file(name) and show_instance_file(&top_instance, name) are > > > equivalent. > > > > > > Remove the show_file() function in order to have a single function for > > > this task. > > > > Actually I find nothing wrong with having a helper function like this. > > IIRC, show_file() was first, and then show_instance_file() came later. > > There's some files that only exist for the top_instance, and I like the > > fact that this is annotated that way. > > > > I'm curious to know what the benefit of removing show_file() is? > > The show_file(name) and show_instance_file(&top_instance, name) are > equivalent: they do the same thing. By removing `show_file` the developers > are > forced to use always the same function and being explicit about the instance > they want to use. > > The name `show_file()` is so generic that does not implies automatically that > we are accessing the top_instance. This is not even clear by reading the > implementation; people must read the other functions used in `show_file()` to > understand that their instance scope is always 'top_instance'. > > So, in my opinion, it makes the code easier to read and more explicit in what > is doing without too much effort. > Just an FYI. You'll find lots of these types of helper functions in the Linux Kernel. As I'm a Linux Kernel developer, I prefer them ;-) -- Steve
