On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> Again: What problem are you attempting to solve by removing the >>> mem_flags from the API? >> >> It is not about removing anything, we are discussing one new API >> (include the parameters) to be introduced. > > Yes. Sure. And the original proposal was to add a new API with a > mem_flags parameter. You proposed to add the same API, but without the > mem_flags parameter. You did not explain why. I still assumed that you > have some reason to propose it. I assumed that reason must be some > problem which would be introduced by having the mem_flags parameter, and > which would be solved if we instead drop it. > > It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to explain your > reasons, so I'll just go ahead and drop my assumptions. You never had > any reason and there never would be any problem. OK, I say it again, GFP_KERNEL is enough to cover all cases, and the mem_flags parameter is redundant. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
