lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements
From
Date
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.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-28 08:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans