[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:11:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:24:32 +0300
> Adrian Bunk <> wrote:
> > > Look, I have repeatedly described the reason why it is probable a poor
> > > tradeoff to merge code such as this. The only response has been "well
> > > we've done it before", which is largely a non-reason.
> > >...
> >
> > It seems you missed the first point in my email:
> >
> > We do not have a stable API for external modules, and part of the deal
> > is that external modules have the chance of entering the kernel where
> > they will get API changes automatically.
> >
> >
> > Plus my other point that one might argue that OMFS adds support for some
> > hardware in which case a recent commandment by Linus would require it
> > has to be merged...
> That's lawyerly trickery, sorry. Take some set of guidelines and then say
> "you are thereby committed to doing X".
> We're not committed to doing anything and it would be bad if we were.
> Let's apply common sense and judgement to each case on its own.

My favorite gems from the stuff even checkpatch finds in the
INFINIBAND_NES driver, for which Linus has stated explicitely that
merging it in this state in 2.6.25 was correct, can be seen with

grep -C4 volatile drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_nic.c

When we have the resources to maintain this kind of code, how could a
small filesystem be a problem?



"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-15 22:31    [W:0.075 / U:3.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site