Re: RFC: what's in a stable series?

From: Andrew Morton (
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 23:16:45 EST

Marcelo Tosatti <> wrote:
> Its a case-by-case problem.

It is. Generally I think we should prefer to do the right thing rather
than adhering to the old API out of some principle.

Evaluate the impact on out-of-tree kernel patches (especially vendor
kernels) and if it is unacceptable then reject the change or augment the API
rather than changing it.

> I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they
> change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of
> change, IMHO.

OK, we're on to a specific case. Albeit a very small one.

I think Trond's direct IO change was right. The impact on out-of-tree code
is infinitesimal. Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and
let the XFS guys write a four-line patch. There's no point in mucking up
the kernel API to save such a small amount of work.

Or merge XFS.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:33 EST