Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261528AbVALWzk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:55:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261548AbVALWyq (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:54:46 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:64235 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261537AbVALWwq (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:52:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:52:30 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Andi Kleen Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Andrew Morton , Takashi Iwai , mingo@elte.hu, rlrevell@joe-job.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@suse.cz, discuss@x86-64.org, gordon.jin@intel.com, alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, VANDROVE@vc.cvut.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix: macros to detect existance of unlocked_ioctl and compat_ioctl Message-ID: <20050112225230.GA14590@kroah.com> References: <20041215065650.GM27225@wotan.suse.de> <20041217014345.GA11926@mellanox.co.il> <20050103011113.6f6c8f44.akpm@osdl.org> <20050105144043.GB19434@mellanox.co.il> <20050105133448.59345b04.akpm@osdl.org> <20050106140636.GE25629@mellanox.co.il> <20050112203606.GA23307@mellanox.co.il> <20050112212954.GA13558@kroah.com> <20050112214326.GB14703@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050112214326.GB14703@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2003 Lines: 49 On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > No, we do not do that in the kernel today, and I'm pretty sure we don't > > Actually we do. e.g. take a look at skbuff.h HAVE_* > There are other examples too. > > > want to start doing it (it would get _huge_ very quickly...) > > I disagree since the alternative is so ugly. But the main problem with this is, when do we start deleting the HAVE_ symbols? After a relativly short period of time, they become useless, as all kernels of the past year or two have that feature, and why even test for it? I agree, that for short term, vendor-patched kernels, it's nice to have something like that to try to build your out-of-the-tree module. But move to get that module into the tree, or provide your favorite vendor with the properly patched driver (hey, I can dream...) And is the alternative (using autoconf to build tiny modules testing for different features) that ugly? Yeah, I hate autoconf too, but I thought that work (kernel feature testing in autoconf) has already been done, right? > > Please don't apply this. Remember, out-of-the-tree modules are on their > > own. > > I don't know who made this "policy", but actively sabotating or denying > useful facilities to free out of tree modules doesn't seem to be a > very wise policy to me. I'm not trying to sabotage anything, I just don't want the maintaince of a zillion HAVE_ macros to slowly overrun us until we drown under the weight. All to support some looney, ill-informed vendor that can never get around to submitting their driver to mainline. And as for that "policy", it's been stated in public by Andrew and Linus and me (if I count for anything, doubtful...) a number of documented times. thanks, greg k-h - 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/