Re: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:21:28 +1000

David S. Miller writes:
> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:25:34 +1000
> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
>
> Definately not! But if flush() was appended to the structure, then
> people had only to recompile their drivers and all would be fine. So
> there would be no silent failures in that scheme.
>
> ...
>
> So please explain where the benefit of placing flush() in the middle
> is?
>
> So that people don't "only recompile their drivers" and the driver
> code actually get updated and fixes done by or sent to the maintainer!

Sigh. Maybe people don't understand my question. Let me ask it another
way: did you want people to go in and manually insert NULL for the new
flush() method and then go and recompile? If so, how is that better
then automatic structure initialisation to NULL?

If not: what did you want people to do? Write a flush() method? In
that case, where was the announcement of the need for every driver to
now implement a mandatory flush() method?

Regards,

Richard....

-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html