On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:23:48AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:09:05AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > >> Setup the buffer access functions in the buffer allocate function. > >There is no > >> need to let each driver handle this on its own. > > > >That's nicer. > > > >So, you have different ways to have "buffers" and the driver doesn't > >know what type you have, and it's chosen at build time? Why are you > >making the kernel builder make such a decision? Why not just pick one, > >that you know works well, and use it? > > > >You would get rid of a whole level of indirection that I really don't > >think you need at all, right? > > Because there is not currently a buffer that suits all use cases. > One might be possible but would involve autoswitching between > different approaches a hence have this indirection anyway, be it > burried. Also note that some of the buffers are hardware. Plus the > pseudo buffer used for in kernel push interfaces is different again. > That code has only reached RFC state so far. So who choses the buffer type, the driver, or the kernel configurator, or something else? > >Make a decision, don't force someone else to make it for you... > Defaults are sensible. Preventing other peoples use cases are not. Ok, but you do agree that this patch is broken as-is, right? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
