From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:35:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:34:56 -0400 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:27433 "EHLO sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:34:42 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: Keith Owens To: Vojtech Pavlik cc: Frank Davis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: 2.4.5-ac4 es1371.o unresolved symbols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 May 2001 10:06:54 +0200." <20010531100654.A1759@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:34:20 +1000 Message-ID: <17420.991298060@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 31 May 2001 10:06:54 +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: >On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 05:52:39PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: >> When the user has gameport hardware compiled it as a module and they >> have es1371 bult into the kernel then es1371 silently ignores the >> gameport, even if the gameport modules has been loaded. This violates >> the principle of least surprise, a user configuring both gameport and >> es1371 expects to use the gameport, kbuild should support that instead >> of silently ignoring the combination. > >True. Is this worse than the ugliness in your patch? Only kernel developers see the ugly patch. The unexpected presence or absence of gameport code affects all users. User always win that argument. Adding a warning is just as bad, kbuild either generates a valid config or nothing at all. Users never check warnings anyway :(.