Re: [RFCLUE3] flagging kernel interface changes

[William D Waddington <william.waddington@beezmo.com>]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> 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 ???
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> in general the best approach has been to make the driver support the 
> NEW interface, and then do some compat thing to fake the old one. The
>  other way around is going to be MUCH more painful long term. So as 
> general rule: always follow the latest API, and use a compat.h hack 
> for older kernels inside your driver, but keep the normal code clean.
>  It's not always easy, but keeping old API and faking it to the new 
> one is only going to be really really painful; things will deviate 
> more and more over time and at some point you'll have to jump anyway.

Good point.  I actually try to do it that way.  Should have said

#ifndef NEW_INTERFACE
...

> In addition quite a few api changes are done in a way that make this
>  less painful than the other way around..

The other part of the question is why this irq_handler prototype change
in 2.6.19 isn't flagged to make things a little easier.

> however in general really there is pain to be out-of-tree; and to
> some degree that's an incentive to merge back  :)

No argument, but I don't have the stamina to try to get my 10+ year
old code out of the public domain and into the main line :)

Many thanks for your reply,
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