Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:53:49 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock |
| |
> 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.
| |