Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:09:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:09:49 -0400 Received: from adsl-67-120-62-187.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([67.120.62.187]:23559 "EHLO exchange.macrolink.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:09:48 -0400 Message-ID: <11E89240C407D311958800A0C9ACF7D13A79D1@EXCHANGE> From: Ed Vance To: "'Russell King'" Cc: Marek Michalkiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Waugh Subject: RE: [patch] fix parport_serial / serial link order (for 2.4.20-pr e8) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:15:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1981 Lines: 45 On Mon, September 30, 2002 at 2:49 AM, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:05:16PM +0200, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote: > > > below is a patch that moves parport_serial.c from drivers/parport/ > > > to drivers/char/ - this fixes the wrong link order when the > > > drivers are compiled into the kernel. > > > > What was wrong with the original, much smaller patch that you sent > > me previously (below)? > > > > I'm happy to accept whichever patch is the better. > > Other than it's a gross hack rather than a fix. However, for 2.4, I > think this is probably the best solution without creating a risk of > other init ordering problems. Ed, any comments? > Hi Russell, I agree. For 2.4, Stability before elegance. Minimum change is a good thing. The patch looks straight-forward enough, simply plop the file into a directory for which it was never intended. It does localize the effect of the change nicely. I have a question. Similar changes have been suggested several times and always seem to bring out a small hail of rather negative comments. (like "gross hack ..." :) Are there any hidden issues with the patch? That is, beyond the decrease in maintainability? I didn't see anything relevant to this technique in the lkml archive. I'm a little wary of anything that gets an "oh no, not this again" reaction. Hmmm... I think I hear the distant sound of arrows being sharpened. Best regards, Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Vance serial24 (at) macrolink (dot) com Macrolink, Inc. 1500 N. Kellogg Dr Anaheim, CA 92807 ---------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/