On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
> >
> > > I think we don't want to keep it.
> >
> > There you go, then. ->fcntl() removed, call replaced with
> > sock_no_fcntl(), proto_ops and proto switched to new syntax. See if
> > it looks sane for you.
> >
> > This looks perfectly fine.
>
> BTW, if somebody wants the same sans ->fcntl() removal - tell and I'll
> send it (I _really_ have other things to worry about and I'm less than
> enthusiastic about picking fights over that interface - I think that
> ->fcntl() is strange method to have, but...)
If it's not used, I recommend the variant of putting null in all the
proto_ops (ie removing it in the new syntax) and checking for null in the
dispatching with a comment in the code and the structure marking it
obsolete. If it's not used, it's not a performance issue and getting rid
of the null checks is a false optimization. Unless there's some other
reason not to do that Dave's not telling us about. If someone is using it,
well then it just works slightly slower.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."- 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 Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST