Re: [-mm patch] USB_LIBUSUAL shouldn't be user-visible

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:46:44PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:41:17PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:28:08 -0800, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > What about letting the two drivers always use libusual?
> > > > 
> > > > Pete?  What do you think about this patch?
> > > 
> > > It does nothing to explain how exactly the current configuration managed
> > > not to work, which leaves me unsatisfied. I did test the kernel to build
> > > correctly with libusub on and off. All we have is this:
> > 
> > The problem is not that it wouldn't work.
> > The question is whether users compiling their kernel should know 
> > anything about USB_LIBUSUAL.
> > IMHO, USB_LIBUSUAL is an internal implementation detail and there's no 
> > reason why a user should ever see this option.
> > This is what my patch does.
> 
> No, it's not an implementation detail, it explicitly changes the way
> things work, and lets users change they way they work, by giving them
> run-time options.
> 
> So it should not be hidden, at least not yet until everyone gets used to
> using it.

Adding a feature doesn't require a new config option for informing the 
user.

What about my second suggestion to always use libusual in the two 
drivers instead of having two code paths in each of them?

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

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