Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:11:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:24:32 +0300
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > Look, I have repeatedly described the reason why it is probable a poor
> > > tradeoff to merge code such as this.  The only response has been "well
> > > we've done it before", which is largely a non-reason.
> > >...
> > 
> > It seems you missed the first point in my email:
> > 
> > We do not have a stable API for external modules, and part of the deal 
> > is that external modules have the chance of entering the kernel where 
> > they will get API changes automatically.
> > 
> > 
> > Plus my other point that one might argue that OMFS adds support for some 
> > hardware in which case a recent commandment by Linus would require it 
> > has to be merged...
> 
> That's lawyerly trickery, sorry.  Take some set of guidelines and then say
> "you are thereby committed to doing X".
> 
> We're not committed to doing anything and it would be bad if we were. 
> Let's apply common sense and judgement to each case on its own.

My favorite gems from the stuff even checkpatch finds in the 
INFINIBAND_NES driver, for which Linus has stated explicitely that 
merging it in this state in 2.6.25 was correct, can be seen with

  grep -C4 volatile drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes_nic.c


When we have the resources to maintain this kind of code, how could a 
small filesystem be a problem?


cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/