Pantelis Antoniou writes: > +# Support new type of routines, usable from modules > +bool 'Use new type dpalloc routines()' CONFIG_NEW_DPALLOC > +bool 'Use new type hostalloc routines()' CONFIG_NEW_HOSTALLOC > +if [ "$CONFIG_NEW_DPALLOC" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_NEW_HOSTALLOC" = "y" ]; then > + define_bool CONFIG_CPM_RHEAP y > +fi
I don't want to see config options that select between different internal implementations of the same thing. Either your new routines are better, and we'll use them, or they are worse, and we'll use the old ones. Having a config option just leads to tons of ifdefs throughout the code, which makes it harder to read and understand. Having two implementations of the same thing is just bloat. Similarly, I don't like the way all your new routines have a "new_" prefix on the name. You should be thinking of replacing the existing routines rather than providing an alternative implementation with a different name. Where you have changed the API, either fix the drivers or provide a compatibility routine. The way it looks at the moment, it seems that you don't really have the conviction that your code is better than what is there already. Please redo your patch so that it just replaces the old routines. And please don't send it as a bkpatch since they are impossible to read, a plain diff -u is much better. Paul. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
