[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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

    Currently we have arch/*/drivers/net/*, drivers/net/*, drivers/net/*/*, and
    > 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.

    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 12:37    [W:0.023 / U:52.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site