Re: [2.6.21 patch] unconditionally enable SYSFS_DEPRECATED

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 07:30:21PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:07:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:40:52AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:58:13AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, how about the following patch.  Is it acceptable to everyone?
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > greg k-h
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  init/Kconfig |   13 +++++++++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > --- gregkh-2.6.orig/init/Kconfig
> > > > +++ gregkh-2.6/init/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -290,8 +290,17 @@ config SYSFS_DEPRECATED
> > > >  	  that belong to a class, back into the /sys/class heirachy, in
> > > >  	  order to support older versions of udev.
> > > >  
> > > > -	  If you are using a distro that was released in 2006 or later,
> > > > -	  it should be safe to say N here.
> > > > +	  If you are using an OpenSuSE, Gentoo, Ubuntu, or Fedora
> > > > +	  release from 2007 or later, it should be safe to say N here.
> > > > +
> > > > +	  If you are using Debian or other distros that are slow to
> > > > +	  update HAL, please say Y here.
> > > >...
> > > 
> > > The sane solution seems to be to enable SYSFS_DEPRECATED unconditionally 
> > > for all users, and schedule it's removal for mid-2008 (or later).
> > > 
> > > 12 months after the first _release_ of a HAL that can live without seems 
> > > to be the first time when we can consider getting rid of it, since all 
> > > distributions with at least one release a year should ship it by then.
> > > 
> > > Currently, SYSFS_DEPRECATED is only a trap for users.
> > 
> > Huh?
> > 
> > No, again, I've been using this just fine for about 6 months now.
> > 
> > And what about all of the servers not using HAL/NetworkManager?
> > And what about all of the embedded systems not using either?
> > 
> > So to not allow this to be turned off by people who might want to (we
> > want this for OpenSuSE 10.3, and Fedora 7 also will want this, as will
> > other distros released this year), is pretty heavy-handed.
> > 
> > It also will work in OpenSuSE 10.2 which is already released, and I
> > think Fedora 6, but I've only limited experience with these.
> > 
> > Oh, and Gentoo works just fine, and has been for the past 6 months.
> >
> > I would just prefer to come up with an acceptable set of wording that
> > will work to properly warn people.
> > 
> > I proposed one such wording which some people took as a slam against
> > Debian, which it really was not at all.
> > 
> > Does someone else want to propose some other wording instead?
> 
> Back up a bit. Let's review:
> 
> Problem: NetworkManager stopped working with my ipw2200 on Debian/unstable
> 
> Theory A: It broke because I'm not running an as-yet-unreleased HAL.
> 
>  Then we should revert the patch pronto because it's an unqualified
>  regression.
> 
> Theory B: It broke because I'm not running relatively recent HAL.
> 
>  By all accounts I'm running the latest and greatest HAL and Network
>  Manager, more than recent enough to work.
> 
> Theory C: It broke because I've got some goofy config.
> 
>  My setup passes no arguments to either. The HAL config file is
>  completely bare-bones and there's no sign of any configuration files
>  for Network Manager.
> 
> Theory D: It broke for some nebulous Debian-related reason.
> 
>  That's a bunch of unhelpful crap.
> 

> Can we come up with an actual theory for what's wrong with my setup, please?
> Like, perhaps:
> 
> Theory E: There's some undiagnosed new breakage that this introduces
> that no else hit until it went into mainline.

Theory F:  It broke because you are using NetworkManager for your
network devices and the patches that fix this have not made it into a
real release?

I'm just guessing, but does anyone who is having this problem, NOT using
NetworkManager?

I'm running an old version of HAL just fine, but I'm not using
NetworkManager here.

I am using NetworkManager on a OpenSuSE 10.3 release, but suse's version
of NetworkManager is well known to not be anywhere near what is released
as a tarball :(

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/