Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements | From | Stefani Seibold <> | Date | Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:06:34 +0100 |
| |
Am Montag, den 28.12.2009, 02:41 +0100 schrieb Andi Kleen: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:06PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > > > I am not happy to see you to take over my project. Especial as most of > > > your fixes are part of my new macro based implementation. Have a look at > > > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/69093/ > > > > I don't really understand. You spent a lot of time getting the kfifo > > stuff merged, and now you want to merge (quoting from that patch above) > > "a complete reimplementation of the new kfifo API"? > >
Yes, because of the limitations. The new merge kfifo stuff was based on the old one. So i overtake this it. But the new one is fully compatible to the merged kfifo.
> > What happened here? Couldn't you have done the reimplementation before > > merging? >
I am sorry, but did not recognized all constrains and features which are really necessary for a real generic fifo interface. And also i did't saw the possibility to do it as a template, because C does not support it. It takes time the mature the idea to implement this as a macro set.
BTW, you give me the idea to reimplementation for kfifo, because you ask me if it is not possible to merge my kqueue RFC.
> I guess the reimplementation came too late (happens sometimes) > And I agree that making kfifos record oriented makes sense.
What does it mean? To late for 2.6.33 or to late to replace it for ever? I think it is easy to replace, because it is fully tested and 100 percent compatible to the new kfifo implementation.
> > Still now that the old one is in we have to fix it at least > until there are no users left. >
The only user of the new features are currently you.
| |