> Nothing prevents the interface from being backported to older kernels
> verbatim.
Actually, I think there should exist two different versions -- one
for 2.3 which would make use of all the new PCI/resource stuff and a
backward-compatible one for 2.0--2.2. It would be better than one code
with zillions of #ifdef's and routines for doing things handled by the
generic code since ages.
> And a comment from pci-netif.c:
> > /* The PCI code in 2.2 is harder to use, and the extra complexity serves
> > no real purpose. The resource code in 2.3 is far worse. It is a complex
> > abstaction layer with negative benefit. */
Donald, I appreciate your excellent driver work, but I think that in this
case, you're wrong.
The PCI code in 2.2 cannot be harder to use even if the only reason were
that it's backward-compatible with the one in 2.3 :-) Also, can you tell
me any concrete example where the new PCI interface is harder to use?
Maybe the resource code in 2.3 is designed suboptimally, but I'm sure we
really need such a thing if we want to support hot-pluggable devices and
other fancy stuff. Besides the problems with maintaining backward-compatible
drivers, what are the negative benefits?
Have a nice fortnight
-- Martin `MJ' Mares <mj@ucw.cz> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mj/ Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Rep., Earth "There is no place like ~"- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/