Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock

[Stefani Seibold]

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/