Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches

On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:09:33PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> ...
> have if getting rid of the defines is prefered, then that's something that
> can easily be done later.

I tend to agree with Christoph on this - this level of internal API
churn is unnecessary and can be error prone (as you cunningly showed ;)
- please just leave it as is, and move on to greener pastures.

thanks.

-- 
Nathan
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: kernel OOPS for XFS in xfs_iget_core (using NFS+SMP+MD)
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.13-rc6-git10 test report [x86_64]
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]