Re: [patch 20/28] drivers/message/fusion/linux_compat.h Removal of old code

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Moore, Eric wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>> Why?  That's against the general kernel policy...
>>
>> As an example, when maintaining libata for 2.4 kernels as well as 2.6 
>> kernels, I had a libata-compat.h file, and always just patched the 
>> include into the kernel source at the same time I patched in the 
>> libata-compat.h contents.
>>
> 
> This is merely a request is all.
> Supporting Red Hat and SuSE distro's is why I ask. 
> I don't care about 2.4 kernel.  My compatibility 
> changes I support occur between 2.6 kernels releases, 
> such example is 2.6.17 and 2.6.18; e.g. SLES10 versus RHEL5
> with sas transport changes.  And they pull from upstream, 
> and I support them with interim bug fix's.

I'm not talking specifically about the 2.4 kernel, but making a 
comparison between upstream, and non-upstream back compat.  My example 
is clearly the same as your current situation.

I think most kernel devs would NAK keeping around an empty kernel header 
just for the sake of forked distro kernels.

	Jeff