Hi, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > I'm OK with dropping legacy f_uac1 implementation. >> > >> > Another idea I was thinking about is to implement simple in-kernel >> > driver which will do the same as existing alsaloop tool userspace >> > tool does (so legacy users will need to load two kernel modules >> > and get same functionality). But this seems to be a wrong way, >> > since It known that Linux kernel community doesn't like to take drivers >> > with same functionality as existing userspace tools already have. >> > >> > So bottom line: since I'm not a legacy f_uac1 user, there is no >> > difference for me how to handle it - remove legacy f_uac1 completely, >> > rename it to f_uac1_legacy or add separate f_uac1_acard function. >> > >> > So if dropping of legacy f_uac1 implementation is OK for you, >> > I can do it quickly in next patchset. >> >> Personally, I don't want duplicated functionality and I think the >> virtual sound card approach is much better. Then again, removing >> functionality we already support is kind of odd. >> >> Greg, Alan, what do you guys think? Do we keep a duplicated function >> around or do we just tell people to rely on alsaloop? Personally, I >> think we're better off with the flexibility of the virtual sound card, >> what's your take? > > If the in-kernel driver will do more things, and we don't break the > existing setups using alsaloop, then I don't see the problem, except > that we now have to maintain two things :) > > If you don't mind the maintenance, fine with me... Okay, I don't think many will continue to use f_uac1.c. Ruslan, can you update your series so that current f_uac1.c gets renamed to f_uac1_legacy.c and you introduce a *new* f_uac1.c instead? Thanks a lot -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
