lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
    David S. Miller writes:
    > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:11:25 +1000
    > From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
    >
    > Linus: for god's sake, back out the particular patch that did this!
    > Surely we can live with having flush() at the end of the structure?!?!
    >
    > This is 2.1.x, for 2.0.x I could understand your grievance, but for
    > 2.1.x it really isn't called for to complain about it. In fact this
    > is the first time I have heard anyone complain about a fundamental
    > structure change in 2.1.x, how come you didn't speak up during all the
    > dentry structure changes, why is this instance different?

    Well, for one thing the dentry changes were actually *useful*. In
    other words, they conferred practical benefits. Secondly, they were
    done in the midst of the development cycle, not just before 2.2 is
    released. I think there are a fair few driver writers who have ported
    to 2.1.x in preparation for 2.2.

    > It is beneficial to put it somewhere in the middle, as then you can
    > perform compiler warning/error message driven updates, if you put it
    > at the end much of the code will compiler silently.

    OK, there is a reason to do it. But is the benefit really worth the
    breakage?

    Regards,

    Richard....

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.035 / U:63.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site