Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock | From | Stefani Seibold <> | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:26:20 +0200 |
| |
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 09:53 +0100 schrieb Alan Cox: > > And the spinlock is in most cases useless, because the API works fine if > > only one reader and one writer is using the fifo. This is the common > > case. > > That is one good argument for fixing the naming. The USB serial code > probably can be persuaded to use the single reader/writer assumption as > well. > > > If you like it is very easy to add a compatibility layer, which restores > > the old function names. But for what, only for very few users who > > depends on it? This will only waste the name space. > > Ooh the tragedy, we are short many things but namespace strangely is not > one of them. Especially when the names all start kfifo_ and __kfifo_, a > namespace much in demand by other code. > > I'd rather have the old names, or the new names than some kind of gunge > middle layer of both. Either choice is better.
The question is: what do you expect? Should i provide a compat layer? Should i retiring my work?
Give me a solution for this dilemma. I see at this point no way if you insist for the spinlock to design a clean interface.
Stefani
| |