On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 07:31:36PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Again, I don't believe that driver writers will care to trace the policy.
> No offence to anybody, but it _just_ _does_ _not_ _happen_. And I don't
> give a damn for any theories - leaving the common stuff to drivers we are
> inviting the Fuckup Fairy. Even for the stuff in the main tree.
You're not kidding. I have an in-progress block device driver which I
fully intend to submit to the main tree when it's finished. Figuring out
exactly what my device driver had to do was somewhat interesting as each
block device seemed to have its own slightly different way of doing it.
Yes, I know I could have asked here, but I wanted to get it actually
transferring data before I started to nitpick about what gets flushed
when. Anything which reduces the amount of code that has to be written
for a device is fine by me.
BTW, as far as the ST506 driver goes, I don't see why it shouldn't
be retained with its own device major. Linux supports other much
weirder and older hardware without it being any problem; it's only the
incestuousness with the ide driver which is causing any trouble here as
far as I can tell.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST