Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:59:10 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: staging driver (epl) |
| |
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:03:15AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > Greg, can I ssh to your box to do > > git rm -rf drivers/staging/epl > sed -i -e '/epl/d' drivers/staging/Kconfig > sed -i -e '/CONFIG_EPL/d' drivers/staging/Makefile > git commit -a -m 'staging: remove epl driver' > > ?
That might be tough for you to do, as it's in every 2.6.29-rc1 release out there. That's a lot of ssh and sed commands needed for you to do :)
> This driver doesn't meet even _the_ basic requirements.
It meets the drivers/staging/ requirements of: - it builds - it is self-contained - someone is using it
Well, some of the stuff in drivers/staging/ don't even meet the first requirement, making this one of the better drivers :)
> It's _full_ of hungarian notation (iRet). > > It's full of typedefs. > > It's full of HAL (tEplApiInstance etc). > > Filenames (!) are in CamelCase. > > It creates sockets from kernel for something. > > It tries to interact with devfs. > > It may come as surprise but you also committed real Win32 code: > > drivers/staging/epl/EplTimeruWin32.c > drivers/staging/epl/ShbIpc-Win32.c > > Amazing, isn't it?
No, not at all, I commited the tarball I was given, after shoehorning it into the kernel build system.
> Do you accept _any_ code?
Yes.
> Exactly zero entry barrier?
Pretty much. Know of any other drivers that should go into here that are floating around in the wild?
Is this a problem?
Is the drivers/staging/ area just not properly documented for people to understand what is going on there and how it differs from the rest of the kernel? Should I write up something a bit more "formal"?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |