On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:07:41PM -0700, Scott Branden wrote:
On 2019-08-22 12:47 p.m., Luis Chamberlain wrote:You mean in the near term future? Your change makes it use the full file.
This implies you having to change the other callers, and while currentlyYes, the list is small, very small.
our list of drivers is small,
There is a single driver making a call to the existing API.
And, the maintainer of that driver wanted
to start utilizing my enhanced API instead of the current API.
Just checking.
As such I think it is very reasonable to update the API right now.I'd prefer to see it separate, and we fix the race *before* we introduce
the new functionality. I'll be poking at that shortly but I should note
that I leave on vacation this weekend and won't be back for a good while.
I already have an idea of how to approach this.
When the current user want to use the new API it can do so, and then we
just kill the older caller.
If the new user is going to move to the API once available I will befollowing the history of the firmware APII would prefer to rename the API at this time given there is only a single
and the long history of debate of *how* we should evolve its API, its
preferred we add yet another new caller for this functionality. So
please add a new caller, and use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
And while at it, pleaase use firmware_request_*() as the prefix, as we
have want to use that as the instilled prefix. We have yet to complete
the rename of the others older callers but its just a matter of time.
So something like: firmware_request_into_buf_offset()
user.
Otherwise I would need to duplicate quite a bit in the test code to support
testing the single user of the old api and then enhanced API.
Or, I can leave existing API in place and change the test case to
just test the enhanced API to keep things simpler in the test code?
happy to then leave out testing for the older API. That would make
sense.
But if you do want to keep testing for the old API, and allow an easy
removal for it on the test driver, wouldn't a function pointer suffice
for which API call to use based on a boolean?
But yeah if we're going to abandon the old mechanism I'm happy to skip
its te
sting.
Luis