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

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:09:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 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?

That's up to Matt and Pete to decide.

thanks,

greg k-h