[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
David S. Miller writes:
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:11:25 +1000
> From: Richard Gooch <>
> 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



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.098 / U:2.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site