On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/09/2013 03:37:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> >> Am 09.01.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > I get that there's a tradeoff between getting something in now, versus >> > waiting until the API is more refined. Tagging it with a particular ISA >> > seems like an odd way of saying "soon to be deprecated", though. What >> > happens if we're still squabbling over the perfect replacement API when >> > we're trying to push PPC MPIC stuff in? >> >> Then we're the ones who have to come up with a good interface. > > > How about another bad one, with PPC in the name, and some pleas to hurry > things up? :-) > > It's not as if there haven't been last-minute requests for API changes on > the PPC side in the past... > > This is getting out of hand. Do you have another API for PPC, which was send for review and not commented on several months ago that we can unify right now? If not, let's go with the ARM name and work on the generic API in the mean time. The end result will be something along 5 lines in a header files and 3 lines in a switch case that return -EINVAL if the interface is completely deprecated later on, which is not a big problem. -Christoffer -- 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
