Re: kobject events questions

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 09:47:14PM +0300, Teras Timo (EXT-YomiGroup/Helsinki) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 09:47:50AM -0700, ext Greg KH wrote:
> > > I'm just a bit dubious about adding new signals since they are hardcoded 
> > > in the kernel. It's a time consuming process to add new signals (either 
> > > for development build or for official kernels). This is one of the 
> > > reasons I liked more about the original kevent patch. Wouldn't simple 
> > > #defines have been enough for signal names?
> > 
> > What's the difference between a #define and a enum?  We want these to be
> > well known, and correct.  A enum gives us that.
> 
> I was a bit ambiguous. I meant #defines with string literals. That would
> have assured correct signal names. I guess to have them all well known
> justifies for enums (even though it makes adding new ones a bit more
> difficult).

That's the point.  It should "be difficult" in that you need to present
a valid reason to the whole kernel community as to why a new event needs
to be added.  But if you make a point that others agree with, then there
should be no problem in adding it.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/