From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:57:29 +1100
On 01 Dec 2002 20:46:40 -0800 "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2002-12-01 at 10:54, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > But if the file is in kernel/xxxx, it
> > will be noticed - at least as well as it would be if it was uglifying
> > regular files with #ifdef's.
>
> Ok, this I accept.
So, does this mean you are happy if I produce patches with kernel/compat.c
in them rather than code #ifdef'ed into the mainline? This, of course,
begs the question of whether it should all go into kernel/compat.c or
should there be an fs/compat.c, mm/compat.c ...
Yes, I'm fine with it.
My personal take on the next issue is that I do believe we should
have fs/compat.c et al.
But for you initial patch, just put it into kernel/compat.c
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:12 EST