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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:30 EST