I'm not interested in what the flush() method fixes. I'm not arguing
that. I'm saying that if Linus wanted to make people aware of the new
flush() method, he could simply have announced it to the kernel list
instead of breaking all drivers.
> >Again, if there is some other hidden assumption going on here, I'd like to
> >know. But *nobody* has explained how the breakage has helped anything.
>
> See above.
I'll rephrase my question: why is it better to break every driver than
to announce a new flush() method which has been appended?
[...]
> >Maybe the inner circle *does* know some deep dark secret, but *I*
> >don't know it and it hasn't been made public. In light of this, my
> >questions are entirely reasonable. Instead of flaming me for pursuing
> >this, why not come forth with some clearer explanations?
>
> Well, I can count the number of kernel things I've done on one hand and I
> just kind of read the source. :)
You're still not answering my key point: why break all drivers rather
than post an announcement that a new flush() method exists?
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