Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree

[Stewart Smith]

Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:54PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I think this is being blown out of proportion.  It was a rarely used
>> API and converting to the new one is mostly trivial which can be
>
> So, looked at the failed code.  The only necessary change seems to be
> calling device_remove_file_self() in dump_ack_store() and then doing
> kobject_put() directly afterwards, which would have been completely
> fine as a merge fix patch.

I had a quick look too and this seems correct (at least if my reading on
howto use sysfs APIs is correct).

I'm happy to post a patch somewhere - I guess it's easiest if the
removal waits for one linus merge things cycle and then I can get fix
and removal in? I'm not too fussed.

> Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily against reverting the removal of
> the API.  The removal was based on the speculation that this isn't
> likely to cause trouble.  The speculation was perfectly reasonable but
> being a speculation it failed, so we take actions to remedy that and
> we *do* want to do things that way.  Reverting the removal can sure be
> one choice but the way that choice is being made here seems completely
> wrong to me.  There's no technical evaluation whatsoever.  I'd really
> hate to work in an environment where taking active trade off is
> discouraged replaced with blind policy enforcement.

I use an API and it changes/disappears - it's a gift I have :)

--
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/