On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 05:15:16PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This code is rather pointless. The ltt_mux is doing all the real
> > work and it's not included. And while we're at it the layering for
> > it is wrong aswell - the ltt_log_event API should be implemented by
> > the actual multiplexer with what's in ltt_log_event now minus the
> > irq disabling becoming a library function.
>
> Actually I kind of disagree here. Yes, you're partially right, ltt_mux
> is doing a lot of work, and it's not included. However, what work
> ltt_mux is doing is administrative and that's what was complained
> about a lot last time the ltt patches were included. So yes, I could
> provide a very basic ltt_mux that would instantiate a single relayfs
> channel and does no filtering whatsoever, but that would be
> insufficient for real usage. And if I provided a full mux, then we'd
> pretty much end up with the same code we had previously.
We're not gonna add hooks to the kernel so you can copile the same
horrible code you had before against it out of tree. Do a sane demux
and submit it.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |