lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Move of input drivers, some word needed from you
    On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:01:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
    > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:02:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > I think what might be saving us right now is that there is only one widely-used
    > > bus architecture (PCI and it's derivatives/predecessors), so no-one is going to
    > > implement conflicting new features in both parts of a split driver.
    >
    > And this is not going to change. Everything but PCI is dead, and there
    > isn't going to be multiple different buses. Sure, we'll have some serial
    > new-generation stuff, and we'll continue to have things like USB, but I'm
    > not worried about having the same chip on different buses. It'
    > s a thing of the past.

    Possible. It's also possible people will go back to having many protocols, if
    only because it's just another few K of firmware ROM on the device side and the
    fibre connection is physically identical.

    > > I don't think "there aren't going to be a great many file in this directory"
    > > is really a good argument against creating a directory, except for the very
    > > special case that there would be no files at all in it.
    >
    > I think you're wrong.
    >
    > Logical naming and hierarchy are only helpers. If they lead to people
    > finding the files more quickly and understanding them better, they are
    > doing their job.

    > If hierarchy leads to having to look more places, think about it more, and

    According to my proposal, we would end up having all network drivers in
    drivers/*/net/*.

    Currently we have arch/*/drivers/net/*, drivers/net/*, drivers/net/*/*, and
    drivers/*/net/*.
    > just more work, that hierarchy is BAD. It doesn't matter if it is logical
    > or not. It sucks. It just ends up being in your way.

    I agree with the general statement. I also think it applies to the current
    hierarchy more strongly than to the proposed new hierarchy. The current
    hierarchy isn't logical, but it also doesn't give you a low number of places
    to look in for drivers. My opinion about the next point should be pretty
    obvious, and I do believe it is getting in the way of people actually trying
    to read some drivers.

    > We could create a subdirectory for each driver. In some cases we _do_
    > that (tulip and ide come to mind). But in the end, it should be done only
    > when it clarifies things, not just because somebody thinks it "ought" to
    > be that way.

    Just to avoid misunderstandments, I never proposed creating a directory for
    each driver. I agree it's a bad idea.

    > And "there aren't going to be many files in this directory" is an argument
    > against it. It means that the directory doesn't end up clarifying things
    > very much at all.

    I would say drivers/s390/net and drivers/s390/misc are good directories.
    They clarify things. Most people just couldn't care less for them, and
    those people can safely ignore all of drivers/s390. Most people don't care
    for sbus, acorn, or sgi, either. some weird embedded people don't care
    about PCI. Most people don't care about weird embedded people's devices.

    Philipp
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:37    [W:0.027 / U:93.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site