On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 12:22 +0530, Santosh Y wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 09, 2013 Santosh wrote: > >> > There are two patches remained. These are applied with your final comments. > >> > Do you have any idea? > >> > [PATCH v4 5/6] scsi: ufs: add dme configuration primitives > >> > [PATCH v4 6/6] scsi: ufs: add dme control primitives > >> > > >> > >> Since there is no use case for these implementations yet, except for > >> ufshcd_get_dme_attr_val(), as per James's suggestion > >> [http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg20207.html] > >> I did not ACK the patches. > >> The same patches can be used to implement related features and resubmit later. > > I respect your decision. But I have another opinion. > > The remained patches are basic operations which should be supported by ufshcd. > > Especially, dme_set/set will be used in vender specific part of host controller rather than in ufshcd itself. > > And above all, Maya Erez completed to test and reported working fine. > > If these patches are merged this time, it would be helpful to various hosts. > > > > I'm ok with merging these patches if James is fine with it. I will ACK > the patches. Well, no, not really. The rule is simple: we don't add new functions to the kernel without callers. The reason is also simple: trying to do interface first and then user some time later is a "make work" development strategy that practically guarantees the interface is either never used or needs modification. From the kernel's point of view, which is more important, review of a function with no callers is only partial because you've no idea how it will be used. Whereas if you review a function and its callers, you can see how the API works and possibly suggest improvements. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
