lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.1.121 breaks compilation, initmem_freed undefined


    On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
    > >
    > > No, the code did NOT make any sense.
    >
    > It made complete sense

    It made sense on a microscopic level, in the sense that it did what it was
    supposed to do. Yes. But no, it didn't make SENSE.

    It did not make sense on _any_ system design level. And that's what I make
    my judgement calls on.

    The problem is that I consider any driver that tries to "know" the
    bootsequence to be a very very broken driver. We had that problem several
    years ago, where a driver that was a module had a very different boot
    sequence than a driver that was compiled in. It results in complete and
    utter confusion, because a driver ends up working/notworking according to
    whether it was installed as a module or not.

    I fixed that, and people complained because I broke a lot of drivers.
    Tough luck, they got fixed, and we're the better for it, because the old
    code did not make sense - different memory management depending on whether
    they were compiled in or drivers.

    Using "initmem_freed" does not make sense, in the very same very real
    manner. A driver should know effing all about the boot sequence, and
    should not care. If it does, it is broken, because it then gets broken
    when I change the boot sequence. Comprende?

    So what happened was that I cleaned up the boot sequence, and no
    well-written drivers broke. That should give you some food for thought. I
    didn't need to touch any of the drivers I use.

    I'd like to re-iterate: I _maintain_ the kernel. And because I do that, it
    makes _no_ sense to me to have drivers (or anything else, for that matter)
    that "know" about internal mm details.

    Case dismissed, "initmem_freed" is never going back in, exactly because
    the _only_ reason for having it is to support bad code that has spagetti-
    like knowledge of some arcane thing that it shouldn't know about.

    Linus


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.025 / U:61.704 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site