![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> wrote: > > Its a case-by-case problem. It is. Generally I think we should prefer to do the right thing rather than adhering to the old API out of some principle. Evaluate the impact on out-of-tree kernel patches (especially vendor kernels) and if it is unacceptable then reject the change or augment the API rather than changing it. > I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they > change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of > change, IMHO. OK, we're on to a specific case. Albeit a very small one. I think Trond's direct IO change was right. The impact on out-of-tree code is infinitesimal. Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and let the XFS guys write a four-line patch. There's no point in mucking up the kernel API to save such a small amount of work. Or merge XFS. - 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 13:46 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||