On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:48:58AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 05/21/2013 10:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > >> I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete > >> _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions > >> were needed. > >> > > > > Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' > > redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, > > then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, > > or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this > > will bring use codes' redundance. > > > > And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over > > do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel > > use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. > > Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() > over many more source files than the single-use case of > do_take_over_console(). > The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is > exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface is do_take_over_console, and the "_workaround_" is exposing take_over_console as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
