From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262150AbVBAWoZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:44:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262145AbVBAWoY (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:44:24 -0500 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:37647 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262150AbVBAWgr (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:36:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:36:45 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Jean Delvare , LKML Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] mark the mcd cdrom driver as BROKEN Message-ID: <20050201223645.GA3258@stusta.de> References: <20050129191430.GF28047@stusta.de> <41FF9F48.60008@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41FF9F48.60008@tmr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:24:56AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 06:22:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > >>Hi Adrian, > >> > >> > >>>The mcd driver drives only very old hardware (some single and double > >>>speed CD drives that were connected either via the soundcard or a > >>>special ISA card), and the mcdx driver offers more functionality for > >>>the same hardware. > >>> > >>>My plan is to mark MCD as broken in 2.6.11 and if noone complains > >>>completely remove this driver some time later. > >>>(...) > >>>- depends on CD_NO_IDESCSI > >>>+ depends on CD_NO_IDESCSI && BROKEN > >> > >>Shouldn't we introduce a DEPRECATED option for use in cases like this > >>one? > > > > > >We could. > > > >We could also list MCD in Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt > >first. > > > >But in this case I doubt it makes any difference. > > > >This driver is for hardware where I doubt many users exist today, and it > >should have been removed nearly ten years ago when the better mcdx > >driver for the same now-obsolete hardware entered the kernel. > > I actually have one (or two) of these, but I agree that in this case it > makes no difference. As a general thing I think DEPRECIATED would be > useful for the case where there is a newer functional driver. The > systems I have are unlikely to ever run a current kernel, so I am not > affected, and I suspect most others who have this old stuff are running > 2.0 or 2.2 kernels, also. Are you using the mcd or the mcdx driver? At 2.2 times, I also had such a drive. But I didn't observe any need for the mcd driver that was already outdated at that time. The mcd driver should perhaps have been removed 10 years ago when the mcdx driver was introduced. You could start today with deprecating the mcd driver instead of a quick removal of this driver. But why? The question is whether the number of people using one of these drives with a 2.6 kernel is above zero or not - not whether we need one or two drivers for them. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed