linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:44:50 +0100
From:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Dmitry <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	pHilipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@...il.com>, tony@...mide.com,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, hiroshi.DOYU@...ia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:34:55AM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2008/4/26, Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >  > WTF? There are currently around 10 copies of clock code in the tree,
> >  > every one slightly different. If this can help us get rid of all that
> >  > crap, that's a GOOD THING, normative or not.
> >
> >
> > At the expense of people going off and inventing their own APIs because
> >  they find that the "normatived" clock API doesn't do what they need to?
> 
> Why? We do already have the API. And it's pretty normative. And the
> goal of my framework is to allow me and few other people not to
> reinvent the API for non-platform clocks.
> 
> >  That's what will happen if you try to force a framework on folk which
> >  they don't agree with.
> 
> If you don't want to use it, you are free to do so. E.g. you can use
> your own set of functions to implement GPIO api.

Now go back and read what Pavel wrote (which I responsed to - the
implication that your clock API _will_ _be_ forced upon _everyone_) and
you'll see that he has a completely different perspective to what you've
just said.  So rather than replying to my response, why not respond to
Pavel with your points you've made above?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/