Re: [RFC] next cycle fun: ->release() API change

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Less boilerplate?  We used to pass inode to fput() as well, but
> switched to passing file alone...

.. and that was painful.

The advantage has to be balanced against the pain it causes. I'm not
seeing the advantage here as being worth it. If this kind of thing not
only causes way more churn, _and_ it causes us to pick a new (worse)
name just because it also forces a non-compatible ABI, I'm really
doubtful.

I mean, if we had *other* reasons for the churn, and the name needed
to change anyway, then maybe, but..

             Linus
--
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/