| On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
|
| > I expect this to be unpopular, but I've been saying lately that
| > when new kernel APIs or syscalls or whatsoever are added to
| > Linux, there should be sufficient docs along with the patch(es)
| > explaining the patch and some intended uses of it, perhaps even
| > with examples. Ingo does this sometimes. Some people don't
| > bother to even come close.
| >
| > Leading by example would be a nice thing to see here.
|
| Hi Randy, no it's not unpopular :) Those were posted togheter with the
| patch :
|
| http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/epoll.txt
| http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/epoll_create.txt
| http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/epoll_ctl.txt
| http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/epoll_wait.txt
|
| to try to explain the new API from user side. From kernel side epoll
| completely uses the sk_wake_async() already available by many versions,
| and also it is not expected to offer kernel services to other kernel
| modules.
Yes, I knew that and I thought about it while typing, but
my dynamic RAM was too dynamic and not being refreshed often
enough. Thanks for doing it for me.
BTW, I didn't mean unpopular for the epoll patch, I meant
unpopular in general, especially for development kernel patches:
if every new feature required docs along with it, it might slow
down Linux development by one day, but help out everyone in
the long run (tm?).
-- ~Randy- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/