I tried submitting a patch a while back:
"[PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new irq_handler prototype"
to add #define __PT_REGS to include/linux/interrupt.h to flag the change
to the new interrupt handler prototype. It wasn't well received :(
No big surprise. The #define wasn't my idea and I hadn't submitted a
patch before. I wanted to see how the patch procedure worked, and
hoped that the flag would be included so I could mod my drivers and
move on...
What I'm curious about is why flagging kernel/driver interface changes
is considered a bad idea. From my point of view as a low-life out-of-
tree driver maintainer,
#ifdef NEW_INTERFACE
#define <my new internals>
#endif
(w/maybe an #else...)
is cleaner and safer than trying to track specific kernel versions in
a multi-kernel-version driver. It seems that in some cases, the new
interface has been, like HAVE_COMPAT_IOCTL for instance.
I don't want to start an argument about "stable_api_nonsense" or the
wisdom of out-of-tree drivers. Just curious about the - why - and
whether it is indifference or antagonism toward drivers outside the
fold. Or ???
Apologies for the long post, and thanks for your time.
Bill
--
--------------------------------------------
William D Waddington
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------
"Even bugs...are unexpected signposts on
the long road of creativity..." - Ken Burtch
-
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]
