[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100420221318.GA2411@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:13:18 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, tytso@....edu,
iws@...o.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] enhanced reimplemention of the kfifo API
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:35:47PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >
> > > This are the features which are currently not used in the kernel:
> > >
> > > kfifo_to_user()
> > > kfifo_from_user()
> > > kfifo_dma_....() macros
> > > kfifo_esize()
> > > kfifo_recsize()
> > > kfifo_put()
> > > kfifo_get()
> > > the fixed size record elements, exclude "unsigned char" fifo's and
> > > the variable size records fifo's
> >
> > If you have features that have no users, why add them? Do you think
> > that some drivers need/want these features?
> >
>
> Some developers ask me for this features, so i am a nice girl and
> implemented it. Especially the kfifo_to_user() and kfifo_from_user() was
> desired and is IMHO very useful.
>
> kfifo_put(), kfifo_get(), kfifo_esize() and kfifo_recsize() didn't coast
> anything, because there are only macros.
>
> Andrew agreed that we add this for a given time period, and have a look
> what happens. The code overhead is not to much.
>
> It is a chicken and egg problem: If we do not provide this features,
> nobody can use it and everyone will write it's own implementation.
Ok, fair enough.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists