lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 9 Jul 2003 21:16:45 -0700
FromAndrew Morton <>
SubjectRe: RFC: what's in a stable series?
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