[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Dummy driver broken in pre-2.0.5
On 20 May 96 at 9:24, Alan Cox wrote:

> > No, I think Thomas is correct that we do need an open() routine, and we
> > might as well make the NULL case an error. For example, the dummy driver
> > actually _had_ an open routine, but it was enabled only when compiled as
> > a module. That's against the ideas of modules - I much prefer it if all
> > the drivers are the same regardless of whether they are compiled as
> > modules or not (that way there are no surprises).
> Not for 2.0 NO WAY. Its not the only driver that randomly breaks because of it.
> For 2.1 yes it makes sense, and also to remove the weird linked list we
> sort of half pre-initialise. As Im sure you'd agree we dont want to change
> the API incompatibily about 2 betas before release. Hence my latest patches

Interesting argument. Linus thinks that things should be changed,
while Alan thinks it'll break the API. I think (as already indicated)
that the long time undiscovered problem was the lack of proper
documentation. If I think about it, each device should have an open
function, but some people thought if NULL was supplied, the kernel
has a suitable "cheap" open function.

Alan is against a change, because it might/will break existing

Well, I think the change should be made now, because a lot of
development will aslo be done with the new, stable kernel 2.0. If the
inetrface isn't clearified now, it'll take over a year until
eberybody notices the new ting. See how many people still stick with


 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.028 / U:1.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site