![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:09:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:46:44PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:41:17PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:28:08 -0800, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What about letting the two drivers always use libusual? > > > > > > > > > > Pete? What do you think about this patch? > > > > > > > > It does nothing to explain how exactly the current configuration managed > > > > not to work, which leaves me unsatisfied. I did test the kernel to build > > > > correctly with libusub on and off. All we have is this: > > > > > > The problem is not that it wouldn't work. > > > The question is whether users compiling their kernel should know > > > anything about USB_LIBUSUAL. > > > IMHO, USB_LIBUSUAL is an internal implementation detail and there's no > > > reason why a user should ever see this option. > > > This is what my patch does. > > > > No, it's not an implementation detail, it explicitly changes the way > > things work, and lets users change they way they work, by giving them > > run-time options. > > > > So it should not be hidden, at least not yet until everyone gets used to > > using it. > > Adding a feature doesn't require a new config option for informing the > user. > > What about my second suggestion to always use libusual in the two > drivers instead of having two code paths in each of them? That's up to Matt and Pete to decide. thanks, greg k-h - 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: 2005-11-11 06:24 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||