From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932308AbZHQJ0V (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:26:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932187AbZHQJ0U (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:26:20 -0400 Received: from www84.your-server.de ([213.133.104.84]:38044 "EHLO www84.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932180AbZHQJ0U (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:26:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] kfifo: move out spinlock From: Stefani Seibold To: Alan Cox Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , Arnd Bergmann , Andi Kleen , Amerigo Wang , Joe Perches In-Reply-To: <20090817095349.4cf8d3c5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <1250455161.28540.4.camel@wall-e> <1250455590.28540.10.camel@wall-e> <20090816235843.0f7f11de@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090816163422.a147a918.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090817074820.3585206b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1250495182.20837.27.camel@wall-e> <20090817091524.33f99737@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1250497736.20837.39.camel@wall-e> <20090817095349.4cf8d3c5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:26:20 +0200 Message-Id: <1250501180.25359.12.camel@wall-e> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: stefani@seibold.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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