![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:57:29 +1100 On 01 Dec 2002 20:46:40 -0800 "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2002-12-01 at 10:54, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > But if the file is in kernel/xxxx, it > > will be noticed - at least as well as it would be if it was uglifying > > regular files with #ifdef's. > > Ok, this I accept. So, does this mean you are happy if I produce patches with kernel/compat.c in them rather than code #ifdef'ed into the mainline? This, of course, begs the question of whether it should all go into kernel/compat.c or should there be an fs/compat.c, mm/compat.c ... Yes, I'm fine with it. My personal take on the next issue is that I do believe we should have fs/compat.c et al. But for you initial patch, just put it into kernel/compat.c - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.306 / U:0.140 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||