On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:09:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:46:44PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Adding a feature doesn't require a new config option for informing the
> user.
>
> What about my second suggestion to always use libusual in the two
> drivers instead of having two code paths in each of them?
That's up to Matt and Pete to decide.
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]
