Re: RFC: what's in a stable series?

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
>
> Its a case-by-case problem.

It is.  Generally I think we should prefer to do the right thing rather
than adhering to the old API out of some principle.

Evaluate the impact on out-of-tree kernel patches (especially vendor
kernels) and if it is unacceptable then reject the change or augment the API
rather than changing it.

>  I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they
>  change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of
>  change, IMHO.

OK, we're on to a specific case.  Albeit a very small one.

I think Trond's direct IO change was right.  The impact on out-of-tree code
is infinitesimal.  Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and
let the XFS guys write a four-line patch.  There's no point in mucking up
the kernel API to save such a small amount of work.

Or merge XFS.