On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:41:17PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:28:08 -0800, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > What about letting the two drivers always use libusual?
> > >
> > > Pete? What do you think about this patch?
> >
> > It does nothing to explain how exactly the current configuration managed
> > not to work, which leaves me unsatisfied. I did test the kernel to build
> > correctly with libusub on and off. All we have is this:
>
> The problem is not that it wouldn't work.
> The question is whether users compiling their kernel should know
> anything about USB_LIBUSUAL.
> IMHO, USB_LIBUSUAL is an internal implementation detail and there's no
> reason why a user should ever see this option.
> This is what my patch does.
No, it's not an implementation detail, it explicitly changes the way
things work, and lets users change they way they work, by giving them
run-time options.
So it should not be hidden, at least not yet until everyone gets used to
using it.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
