lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Kill I4L?
> The reason is the maintenance load it produces. There's a continuous,
> annoying trickle of patch proposals, discussions, conflicts with
> development in other, still actively maintained areas of the kernel,
> and so on. The present discussion being a point in case.
>
> > Does it hurt anyone to leave the code in there, despite it barely
> > being used?
>
> Yes it does. Not much, but the pain is increasing over the years.
> Every time someone tries to touch that code there's the problem
> that no one can actually answer for it, much less test anything.

The same has been happening with a lot of other code. For i2o I've
followed the pattern a few other drivers have used. I sent GregKH a patch
to move it into staging, and if nobody steps up then it will vanish in a
few releases.

> > We're not talking about a particularly huge driver here, either.
>
> But one that's particularly difficult to maintain, without
> providing any noticeable benefit in return.

I'm also not sure a pretty, polished and untested driver is actually
better than someone who needs it going back to an old tree and a known
working driver to forward port.

Alan


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-09 21:01    [W:0.037 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site