Re: Moving sound/* to drivers/ ?
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 17:45:22 EST
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> One thing that annoys me sometimes is that the sound driver codes are
> on a different subdirectory than other normal drivers, namely under
I would certainly personally like drivers/sound more, and the placement at
the top level is actually because the sound maintainers wanted it that
way, probably to avoid the confusion with the old OSS drivers that used to
live in drivers/sound.
I forget the exact details. It's been many many years, and there may have
been some real technical issues too. But basically sound/ was created when
ALSA was first merged, and we had a lot of renames from drivers/sound/xyz
(It may have been that it was simply easier to have a new subdirectory
than it was to re-use the old one. In fact, with BK and patches, that
was generally the best way to guarantee that the rename-tool did the
right thing, so details like that may have been part of it. I forget).
So I would personally certainly not mind somebody doing a
git mv sound drivers/sound
.. edit makefiles and Kconfig files appropriately ..
git commit -a
and it wouldn't be a problem for git (ie the repository wouldn't grow or
anything like that).
And doing pure renames (and not editing up a lot of actual files) would
make rename detection easy for subsequent merges. The only real pain of
renames is the efficiency of detection when you have lots and lots of
files, but if the SHA1 of the file stays the same for the big bulk of
them, that makes the problem basically go away (it becomes a much more
interesting problem when you move hundreds of files around and _also_ edit
the bulk of them - even if the edits are trivial, now you need to
actually look at the contents to figure out the renames).
> If I understand correctly, with git, we can move the files in
> relatively little costs. So, what about moving sound/* back to
> drivers/sound/* or drivers/media/sound/*?
I'd personally prefer just drivers/sound - no point in making it any
deeper than that.
But I'd not be much affected myself, so I don't much care. I do agree that
it would fit better under drivers/, but it's really mostly up to you guys.
> Of course, the primary question is whether it's really worth.
> The obvious drawback is that patches won't be applicable after the
Well, git merging is actually pretty good at this, so you can apply the
patches to the old release and then merge it, and it will do the right
thing (perhaps not for newly created files, but that's pretty easy to fix
Also, even if you keep it as patches, as long as you move the whole
subdirectory, then fixing up the patch is just a trivial
search-and-replace, so I doubt it would be a big issue.
But it's really up to you guys.
Me personally, I've been more irritated by include/asm-xyz vs arch/xyz. It
would be so nice if all the arch-specific changes woudl always show up
under arch/ (both from a statistics standpoint, and just because then a
diffstat really shows arch-specific stuff really obviously, and sorts all
the arch-specific stuff together).
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/