Re: [PATCH] fix: macros to detect existance of unlocked_ioctl andcompat_ioctl

[Andrew Morton]

Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > No, we do not do that in the kernel today, and I'm pretty sure we don't
> > 
> > Actually we do. e.g. take a look at skbuff.h HAVE_*
> > There are other examples too.
> > 
> > > want to start doing it (it would get _huge_ very quickly...)
> > 
> > I disagree since the alternative is so ugly.
> 
> But the main problem with this is, when do we start deleting the HAVE_
> symbols?

This is a self-correcting system.  If the symbols are so offensive, someone
will get offended and will submit a patch to delete them at the appropriate
time.  If they're not so offensive then we've nothing to care about.

> ...
> And as for that "policy", it's been stated in public by Andrew and
> Linus and me (if I count for anything, doubtful...) a number of
> documented times.

not me ;) It's two lines of code and makes things much simpler for the
users of our work.  Seems a no-brainer.

And practically speaking, we don't make such fundamental driver-visible
changes _that_ often - if we end up getting buried under a proliferation of
HAVE_FOO macros, then the presence of the macros is the least of our
problems, yes?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/