public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William D Waddington <william.waddington@beezmo.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFCLUE3] flagging kernel interface changes
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:14:11 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <455B9133.9030704@beezmo.com> (raw)

I tried submitting a patch a while back:
"[PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new irq_handler prototype"
to add #define __PT_REGS to include/linux/interrupt.h to flag the change
to the new interrupt handler prototype.  It wasn't well received :(

No big surprise.  The #define wasn't my idea and I hadn't submitted a
patch before.  I wanted to see how the patch procedure worked, and
hoped that the flag would be included so I could mod my drivers and
move on...

What I'm curious about is why flagging kernel/driver interface changes
is considered a bad idea.  From my point of view as a low-life out-of-
tree driver maintainer,

#ifdef NEW_INTERFACE
#define <my new internals>
#endif

(w/maybe an #else...)

is cleaner and safer than trying to track specific kernel versions in
a multi-kernel-version driver.  It seems that in some cases, the new
interface has been, like HAVE_COMPAT_IOCTL for instance.

I don't want to start an argument about	"stable_api_nonsense" or the
wisdom of out-of-tree drivers.  Just curious about the - why - and
whether it is indifference or antagonism toward drivers outside the
fold. Or ???

Apologies for the long post, and thanks for your time.

Bill
-- 
--------------------------------------------
William D Waddington
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
william.waddington@beezmo.com
--------------------------------------------
"Even bugs...are unexpected signposts on
the long road of creativity..." - Ken Burtch

             reply	other threads:[~2006-11-15 22:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-15 22:14 William D Waddington [this message]
2006-11-15 22:25 ` [RFCLUE3] flagging kernel interface changes Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-15 22:37   ` William D Waddington
2006-11-16  1:05     ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-11-15 23:17 ` Jesper Juhl
2007-01-21 19:15   ` William D Waddington

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=455B9133.9030704@beezmo.com \
    --to=william.waddington@beezmo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox