Re: [PATCH] relayfs redux, part 2

[Karim Yaghmour]

Tom Zanussi wrote:
> I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive - we could keep
> relay_reserve(), but the relay_write() that's currently built on top
> of relay_reserve() would use the putc code instead.  It's complicating
> the API a bit, but if it makes everyone happy...

Actually I think that this would be a much better use of relay_write(),
which is unlikely to be used by any client that requires relay_reserve()
to start with. Also, I don't think it complicates the API at all.
Compared to the original API, what we've got now is very simple. So
it basically boils down to:
- use relay_write() if you want putc-like functionality.
- use relay_reserve() if you want to reserve space and write separately.

This is even better than having a separate ad-hoc mode.

Karim
-- 
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || karim@xxxxxxxxxxx || 1-866-677-4546
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/