On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:00:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, James. > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > So if we're agreed no other devices going forwards should ever use this > > interface, is there any point unifying the interface? No matter how > > many caveats you hedge it round with, putting the API in a central place > > will be a bit like a honey trap for careless bears. It might be safer > > just to leave it buried in the three current drivers. > > Yeah, that was my hope but I think it would be easier to enforce to > have a common function which is clearly marked legacy so that new > driver writers can go look for the naming code in the existing ones, > find out they're all using the same function which is marked legacy > and explains what to do for newer drivers. > > Thanks. I think I'm not the only one to be confused about the preferred direction here. James, do you agree to the approach above? It would be nice to fix virtio block for 3.4, so how about this: - I'll just apply the original bugfix patch for 3.4 - it only affects virtio - Ren will repost the refactoring patch on top, and we can keep up the discussion Ren if you agree, can you make this a two patch series please? > -- > tejun > _______________________________________________ > Virtualization mailing list > Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
