Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: >On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:48:08AM +0000, J.I. Cameron wrote: >> >>>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? >> Not sure I do. I admit it isn't a patch I really cared about either >way, >> but it is just providing a trivial bit of boiler plate removal. >> The buffer allocation and access functions are always pared and all I >see >> here is moving the access funcs bit inside the allocation call? >> >> Perhaps I have missunderstood what you don't like? > >I don't like anything that forces the builder of the kernel to choose >the buffer type, that should be done by the driver, or it should be >dynamic and changable, and you need to provide documentation as to why >you would want to change the buffer type. Can make it dynamic easily enough . Does indeed need more docs on the different buffer types. I will get to that at somepoint... > >greg k-h -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
