* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > that's where it belongs - but it first needs the cleanups suggested
> > by Christoph.
>
> I had the impression that he didn't want it in, but instead wanted
> each driver to be changed separately.
that can be done too in a later stage. We cannot deprecate an API from
one day to another. But wrapping it sanely via an existing framework
makes complete sense.
> > > and perhaps even turn on the tasklets-as-workqueues as default.
> >
> > that is a hack that shouldnt be in the patch. People can
> > unapply/apply a patch just as well as they can flip a .config
> > switch.
>
> So should the patch be then to not even have the tasklet_softirq there
> at all? Have the patch simply replace the tasklets with workqueues,
> and if someone doesn't like that, then they can simply remove the
> patch?
yes, the softirq based tasklet implementation with workqueue based
implementation, but the tasklet API itself should still stay.
ok, enough idle talking, lets see the next round of patches? :)
please remove all the pr_debug() lines as well - they are handy for
development but are quite unnecessary for something headed
upstream-wards. And please replace all the BUG_ON()s with WARN_ON_ONCE()
...
Ingo
-
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/
