Of course I can revert changes but I'd point out that pseudo attach functions were already inconsistent, and I want to fix that inconsistency.
Could you list "a number of" other instances that use `int n'? On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:34 AM, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: > Masao Uebayashi writes: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Paul Goyette <p...@vps1.whooppee.com> >> wrote: >> (snip) >> > Wasn't the 'n' parameter supposed to be used to tell the driver how many >> > instances of the pseudo-device should be instantiated? At least, for those >> > drivers which do not automatically clone? >> >> Yes. >> >> > Have all of the pseudo-devices been modified to clone? >> >> As I said in another mail, "not yet". > > it looks like raidframe was updated. > > either way, please revert your change. what you have now is > inconsistent and we have two prototypes for the same function > in different headers that conflict. > > that's just confusing. until everything is converted (and > this is a good thing), the current system should remain. > > > .mrg.