Re: [RFC PATCHES] Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...>, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...>, linux kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@...>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@...>, Al Viro <viro@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 - 2:19 am

On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 19:48 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:


Looks great, thx :-).  I'll convert some of my stuff over to this
interface and see how it flies in the real world.


ISTR when I did this I kept the old semantics and used ERR_PTR and
friends if things went pear-shaped.  Given the small number of in-tree
users needing to be moved over, a more intrusive change for the sake of
a cleaner API like you've done is probably a good thing anyway :-)

Thanks again,
	--Ben.


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Sun Jun 8, 5:25 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCHES] Re: Is configfs the right solution for con..., Ben Nizette, (Fri Jun 20, 2:19 am)
Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Tue Jun 10, 4:12 am)