Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:19:53AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >>> > The same could've been done for g_file_storage :-) > >>> > >>> It essentially _was_ done; the result was g_mass_storage. The two > >>> drivers are almost but not quite entirely the same (apart from use of > >>> the composite framework). > >> > >>I see, the problem now is that we have two drivers doing somewhat the > >>same thing and while the ARM people already got bashed because of "not > >>sharing enough code" we have duplicate drivers on the gadget framework > >>:-) > > > >Yeah, it's a mess. I don't know what would be best. > > With all due respect Alan, I think that in the long run we should get > rid of g_file_storage. Your request not to delete it when I introduced > g_mass_storage was a good one as it in fact turned out that > g_mass_storage introduced a few bugs, but as g_mass_storage matures > I think there is no need for g_file_storage. And I'm not saying the > moment is now. Considering g_file_storage was in the tree much earlier, I'm not sure this is the right answer. We will loose the great contributions Alan has made, but OTOH we don't need two drivers doing the same thing. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
