Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:30:30 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: devfs |
| |
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Rando Christensen wrote:
> Rather than saying "Devfs sucks, and we can't do anything about it other > than fix it's more minor problems because we're in feature freeze", we > should be saying "devfs sucks; we're a little late for feature freeze, > so let's clean up what we can and work on something much better for the > next time around."
Whatever is going to happen with devfs, believe me, the first thing you'll need is stable glue in drivers - as simple and natural from the driver POV as possible. Complexity of doing development in 2.6 will directly depend on the amount of code in drivers touched by patches. BTDT - one can carry (and gradually merge) deep rewrites of core code during -STABLE if it's done carefully. But as soon as your patchset hits the drivers - you are in for a world of pain just porting it to next versions.
_That_ is critical - get interfaces right in -CURRENT, so that further work would not cross these boundaries; then work in the resulting areas becomes independent.
And in situations like that of devfs, simple rules for callers are pretty much the main criteria - if users of the interface have to jump through some hoops, it's a sign that interface needs changes...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |