On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 02:46:37AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Wrong again, it makes the code less readable because kzalloc() is a
> > non standard function name. This looks more to me like a patch just
> > for the sake of the patch.
>
> Since when has "kmalloc" been a standard name anyway ?
Why do we have printk anyway? It serves the same purpose as printf and
is even tagged as `taking arguments like printf' for gcc's type-checking
benefit. It makes it harder to take large chunks of code and move it
to userspace for testing (ok, i can #define printk printf, but still).
Just Hysterical Raisins?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:28 EST