![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > No, we do not do that in the kernel today, and I'm pretty sure we don't > > > > Actually we do. e.g. take a look at skbuff.h HAVE_* > > There are other examples too. > > > > > want to start doing it (it would get _huge_ very quickly...) > > > > I disagree since the alternative is so ugly. > > But the main problem with this is, when do we start deleting the HAVE_ > symbols? This is a self-correcting system. If the symbols are so offensive, someone will get offended and will submit a patch to delete them at the appropriate time. If they're not so offensive then we've nothing to care about. > ... > And as for that "policy", it's been stated in public by Andrew and > Linus and me (if I count for anything, doubtful...) a number of > documented times. not me ;) It's two lines of code and makes things much simpler for the users of our work. Seems a no-brainer. And practically speaking, we don't make such fundamental driver-visible changes _that_ often - if we end up getting buried under a proliferation of HAVE_FOO macros, then the presence of the macros is the least of our problems, yes? - 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 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||