From: Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Matching semantics for version numbers....
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:54:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-hotplug-98520095000979@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-hotplug-98512282728951@msgid-missing>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2258 bytes --]
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:12:09PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Two comments come to mind:
>
> (1) Is it correct that changing this would involve no more than:
>
> * Linux 2.4.? kernel updates:
> - drivers/usb/usb.c ... usb_match_id()
> - drivers/usb/ibmcam.c ... uses range matching
I'm not certain if this range-matching is done correctly for < > or if it
thinks <= and >=, but assuming it's "working" now, yes, it would need
changing.
> - drivers/usb/storage/unusual_devs.h ... lots of ranges
This wouldn't need updating -- it's actually improperly coded right now
with the assumption of <= and >= (which was how my custom matching code
worked).
> * Hotplug scripts
> * "usbmodules"
I'm not sure what you mean by this item.
> * No spec/documentation (yet)
Other than my comments above, yes, that should be all the changes.
> Distributions would need to get all those updates at once;
> I don't know how much of a problem that'd be, except
> that if there's no coordination then it'll be painful. If it
> happens, this should all be ready at the same time. (Not
> like the original match_flags patch ... though goofing this
> up would break less, since "modutils" will still work.)
AFAICT, yes. Having one part of the patch (assuming the 2 kernel files
count as one "part") doesn't break anything.
> (2) For some reason my preference in this area would
> be to use "low <= value < high" range specs rather the
> current "low < value < high" or "low <= value <= high".
>
> That's just a better match to how I normally think about
> such ranges -- not a huge deal, but it seems like Jeff
> Ozvold had a similar thought. So maybe I'm not alone
> in thinking about those bcd version codes that way.
Someone mentioned this to me in a private e-mail... it seems reasonable, as
then range checks can be 0.00 -- 3.00, and 3.00 -- 9.99 with no overlap.
Tho, it _must_ be well documented that the low and high parameters are
matched slightly differently.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Ye gods! I have feet??!
-- Dust Puppy
User Friendly, 12/4/1997
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-21 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-20 21:12 Matching semantics for version numbers Matthew Dharm
2001-03-21 6:12 ` David Brownell
2001-03-21 18:54 ` Matthew Dharm [this message]
2001-03-22 19:23 ` David Brownell
2001-03-22 19:50 ` Matthew Dharm
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-linux-hotplug-98520095000979@msgid-missing \
--to=mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net \
--cc=linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).