On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:18:25PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 23:09 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > This is not about efficiency. When have I *ever* posted optimization > patches? > > This is about clarity. We have a standard convention for > register/unregister. And they can't fail. Either of these would be > sufficient to justify a change. > > Too many people doing cool new things in the kernel, not enough > polishing of the crap that's already there 8( > > > But I think we need to weed that crappiness out of XFS first.
Can anyone else see the contradiction in these statements? XFS's "crappiness" is a register/unregister interface. The only reason it's being removed is because it's getting replaced with a nearly identical register/unregister interface. Just thought I'd point that out.... ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
