From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: buffer cache Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:13:51 +0100 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1063689231.788.63.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Greg KH , Jan Hudec , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from imladris.demon.co.uk ([193.237.130.41]:27814 "EHLO imladris.demon.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261734AbTIPFN5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:13:57 -0400 To: Bryan Henderson In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:41 -0700, Bryan Henderson wrote: > >> But if you accept the idea that a module writer can write his own make > >> file, then he is free to organize the source code in original ways, use a > >> language other than C, and share code or structure with non-Linux > >> applications (e.g. device drivers for the same device in other OSes). > > > >Um, I think the point is that no one does accept that idea. > > I think that's a bit of an overstatement. I accept the idea. I also accept the idea that said module writer can also write all his own include files _too_, and avoid even having to have a kernel tree around at all. I think he'd have to be on crack, but I do accept that he _can_ do that. But I don't want him asking for support, and I don't want him advocating this practice to newbies. Do what you like in the privacy of your own home; I really couldn't give a monkey's. Just don't talk about it in public :) -- dwmw2