From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [NETFILTER] Kill lockhelp.h for rtsp-conntrack Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:49:58 +0200 Message-ID: <4314D486.9040406@trash.net> References: <431375BA.7080900@trash.net> <4313939A.4030002@trash.net> <20050830071102.GD4202@rama.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, Samir Bellabes Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: <20050830071102.GD4202@rama.de.gnumonks.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Harald Welte wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:00:42AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>>I mean that linux-2.6.11 don't need this patch at all. >>>As far a you push 'kill lockhelp.h patch' in 2.6.13, people who use >>>p-o-m with a kernel version < 2.6.13, should use lockhelp.h again. >>>But now, this 3 patches will apply to all versions. >> >>I don't know what the general feeling about supporting old versions >>in pom is, I would tend to ignore them if it means starting a third >>linux subdirectory that should be maintained in some patchlets. >>Harald, what is your opinion on this? > > > I would rather start a new subdirectory than patching the old code. > This way users of old kernels can have a working version, too (even if > that old version doesn't have all the features or receives all the > patches that newer versions do). At least as long as we're using the > current patch-o-matic-ng, I think that's the way to go. Ok, I'll fix it up tomorrow. Still something to discuss at the workshop I think, putting time into maintaining compatibility with old kernels is badly invested time IMO. > When we decide do get rid of patch-o-matic-ng at some point, we > obviously can also drop the 'old kernel' requirement. Obviously :)