On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 17:37 -0500, pat-lkml wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: > > Thanks for the review, Pavel. > > > > I agree with all you've said, Pat, care to make a new patch? > > > > johannes > > Pavel reviewed a newer version for me while I was at work today. I > didn't post it to the list as I didn't have access to this account. I'm > going to implement the new set of changes and try to submit a new patch > some time tonight. One question, is it preferred to make the code use > the new API and add compatibility to make it use the old API, or vice > versa? I've written a function that uses the new > genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(arg1, &arg2) syntax wrapped in the old arg2 = > genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(arg1) syntax already, but based on Pavel's > suggestions, it seems it's preferred to go the other way? I think I'd prefer using the new version as well, even though then you have to make up a bogus return value, but it seems easier just so we can at some point just remove the compat code for the old version. Maybe. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
