Hi Richard, Pekka,
On 5/2/07, Pekka Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/2/07, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote:
> I realise a maze of ifdefs still remain. I've already spent a lot of
> time removing a ton of them and going much further might start to affect
> diffability of the code - I hoping whats there is a good compromise.
I really don't think this is suitable for inclusion in the kernel. Any
reason why you don't just fork the code and clean it up properly? Sure
it will take some more work to track the original but how hard can it
be for ~1700 lines of code?
I'd have to agree with that. When something gets ported to the kernel
(from some userspace library, or from any other piece of software),
then it _must_ be ported completely and follow the usual kernel style.
In fact I bet you can knock off a cool couple of hundred lines of gunk
from the patch just by doing a proper port and getting rid of those
pointless typedefs, for example.
(On an unrelated note/rant, this was one of the reasons why I
absolutely hate those MODSIGN patches being maintained by Red
Hat/Fedora/etc that port the GNU MPI library to the kernel but don't
do so properly, so that it can be diffed with future GNU MP releases
for easy maintainability -- with the result that the patch ends up
containing arch-specific assembly for platforms that Linux doesn't
even run on! Good to see that at least you've taken the pains to avoid
that kind of brain damage, but a full port would be better)
Thanks,
Satyam
-
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]