Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches

2005-08-18 Thread Jesper Juhl
On 8/19/05, Nathan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:09:33PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > ... > > have if getting rid of the defines is prefered, then that's something that > > can easily be done later. > > I tend to agree with Christoph on this - this level of

Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches

2005-08-18 Thread Nathan Scott
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:09:33PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > ... > have if getting rid of the defines is prefered, then that's something that > can easily be done later. I tend to agree with Christoph on this - this level of internal API churn is unnecessary and can be error prone (as you

Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches

2005-08-18 Thread Nathan Scott
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:09:33PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: ... have if getting rid of the defines is prefered, then that's something that can easily be done later. I tend to agree with Christoph on this - this level of internal API churn is unnecessary and can be error prone (as you

Re: [PATCH] rename locking functions - fix a blunder in initial patches

2005-08-18 Thread Jesper Juhl
On 8/19/05, Nathan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:09:33PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: ... have if getting rid of the defines is prefered, then that's something that can easily be done later. I tend to agree with Christoph on this - this level of internal API