Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755389Ab1D0UE6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:04:58 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:50920 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752902Ab1D0UE5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:04:57 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=qyUSAyc82z9xLljZQc9ErY9Tl2GSEfqK/XYZS35I9d8= c=1 sm=0 a=i38SgkEfDKkA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=JZkBfICjAAico3CUu5oA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro. From: Steven Rostedt To: Pekka Enberg Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Thiago Farina , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Rusty Russell , Ingo Molnar , "David S. Miller" , Al Viro , "Ted Ts'o" , Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: References: <1303926576.18763.75.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <4DB86163.2070201@zytor.com> <1303931761.18763.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:04:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1303934694.18763.112.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1322 Lines: 29 On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 22:38 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > To be honest, I don't think the arguments for streq() are that strong > but I wanted to point out that the arguments against it weren't all > that great either... And I totally agree with you here. To be honest myself, I'm not set on having streq() in the kernel. I'm perfectly happy doing the strcmp()==0 method. If someone were to get it into the kernel I would be happy to convert to it. But like you, I don't think the strong NACKs were justified. It was a lot of hand waving why we should not have it in the kernel. If the argument against streq() is simply that the arguments are not strong enough to add it, and there's no real evidence that it fixes bugs, then sure, I'll buy that. And I've been stating from the beginning that this is all a preference thing. I'm guessing that we have probably the same amount for it as against it, so I'm against a full conversion to it. But this talk of it changing the C language is a bunch of bull. It's no different than having printk() instead of printf(). -- Steve -- 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/