Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2003 10:22:56 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH[[2.5][3-11] update dvb subsystem core |
| |
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:40:26AM +0200, Michael Hunold wrote: > Hello Christoph, > > > What the problem with 2.5, dvb and devfs? > > The main problem is that our development "dvb-kernel" CVS tree *should* > compile under 2.4 aswell, because most of the dvb-users don't want to > participate in kernel development in general, but only on the > development of the dvb subsystem. So work is done on the "dvb-kernel" > tree, which should be synced with the 2.5 kernel frequently.
That okay in principle, but I'd like to ask you nicely to not touch any devfs-related stuff currently. I'ts in flux and any external change makes my life in cleaning up the mess a lot harder.
> > But first I have to fix the devfs API on 2.5 and randomly bringing > > back old crap and lots of ifdefs in those changing areas won't help. > > I understand. But delaying the dvb updates just because a few calls to > the devfs subsystem (which are now separated by #ifdefs and can easily > be found) is not a good option either, or is it?
I think it is :) Esepcially as you don't just add ifdefs (which give me lots of rejects and you much uglier code than just using the compat header I'll send to lkml once I'm done with the API changes) but you also change the code that's ifdefed for 2.5 to reverse change I did. There is a reason why I removed every occurance of devfs_handle_t from all drivers and the particular reason is that it will go away in the next series of patches.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |