Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030561AbWKUPIt (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:08:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030812AbWKUPIt (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:08:49 -0500 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:8164 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030561AbWKUPIs (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:08:48 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:from:reply-to:x-priority:message-id:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=k5bH4rDORRm7nhHAFmqj+N6HhAD6n0UaHnxx7Q5DBR9Hjtaosd4d1B0hOndX764XdUtB5o9o+RNK6dEPQ7b+VMvWMce3wNwsDasul1aHtHV4VMBfjnrkRn/Q2Vf1ExgCVl7Y4WYgK3b+tzHLuHz7p+FxLY2taauRvS1RoEPD/Ic= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:08:46 +0200 From: Paul Sokolovsky Reply-To: Paul Sokolovsky X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1697835939.20061121170846@gmail.com> To: Adrian Bunk CC: Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , Jiri Slaby , , Subject: Re[2]: Where did find_bus() go in 2.6.18? In-Reply-To: <20061120173550.GV31879@stusta.de> References: <1154868495.20061120003437@gmail.com> <4560ECAF.1030901@gmail.com> <20061120001212.GA28427@suse.de> <1148526308.20061120161322@gmail.com> <20061120173550.GV31879@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3296 Lines: 82 Hello Adrian, Monday, November 20, 2006, 7:35:50 PM, you wrote: [] >> And suddenly - oops, in 2.6.18 we lose ability to query the highest >> level of hierarchy, namely bus set. [] > As Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt explains, there is no stable > kernel API. Thanks, Adrian, from the first mail I really counted which reply # (if I would get them at all) will point me to that "bible" of kernel developers, and just wondered, would it be too ugly to ask for an answer which wouldn't recourse to that doc. But now that you mentioned it, let me make you laugh at jaundiced eye's look on the issue: it appears it's just itch for kernel developers to make APIs not stable. When some API is stable, because it's both trivial and complete (like that bus methods which are just based on generic container object idea - you can't add or take from that), some artificial criteria are employed, like "unused", to still find a way to destabilize API ;-). > If you don't want to get the APIs your driver uses > changed/removed you should really try to get it merged into mainline. Would this really be the case? I guess, most people would think that getting something into mainline is indeed the end of battle. And yet for others, it may be the case that single driver using some API is almost just the same as 0 drivers doing that. If 1001 is almost 1000, why 1 can't be almost 0? Why this would be worse than "Well, noone uses that call now - let's make noone use it ever, at all." So that's what I'm trying to argue - let the change which needs to be done, be based on the high-level ideas of the meaning of the thing being changed, not on purely quantitative, and thus, subject to separate interpretation, parameters. And removing a method from an integral, high-level API set is not the same as killing static variable in a hardware driver. > The find_bus() case is even more interesting since you are using it in a > driver although it has never been exported to modules. Considering that > you anyway have to patch the kernel for getting your driver running > (since it won't run as a module against an unmodified kernel), you could > simply undo my patch locally until you submit your driver for inclusion > in mainline. Well, I believe you expected and cared to get such feedback, because otherwise, you wouldn't use #if 0, but killed unlucky function completely ;-(. I don't hold breath for those #if 0 to be removed based on the above right now, but I hope the function at least won't be removed completely for now, to indeed let whoever may have need for it still use it somehow (and submit code to mainline, if that is what actually would take to have the issue resolved). As for EXPORT's, indeed, mainline kernel lacks quite a few which are useful. But obviously, I won't argue for adding them now, out of context - that would be just as random change, as, IMHO, and sorry, removing find_bus() from use. >> Paul > cu > Adrian -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com - 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/