Re: kobject events questions
From: Greg KH
Date: Fri Oct 01 2004 - 14:25:25 EST
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 09:47:14PM +0300, Teras Timo (EXT-YomiGroup/Helsinki) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 09:47:50AM -0700, ext Greg KH wrote:
> > > I'm just a bit dubious about adding new signals since they are hardcoded
> > > in the kernel. It's a time consuming process to add new signals (either
> > > for development build or for official kernels). This is one of the
> > > reasons I liked more about the original kevent patch. Wouldn't simple
> > > #defines have been enough for signal names?
> > What's the difference between a #define and a enum? We want these to be
> > well known, and correct. A enum gives us that.
> I was a bit ambiguous. I meant #defines with string literals. That would
> have assured correct signal names. I guess to have them all well known
> justifies for enums (even though it makes adding new ones a bit more
That's the point. It should "be difficult" in that you need to present
a valid reason to the whole kernel community as to why a new event needs
to be added. But if you make a point that others agree with, then there
should be no problem in adding it.
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/