Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

[Eric W. Biederman]

Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:37:47 -0400
>> Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>> the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different
>>>> from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 .....
>>>> it's not really ;)
>>> Note my mention of backport -- kernel version isn't relevant when the various
>>> enterprise distros have random featuresets under random
>>> kernel versions.
>>>
>>
>> yeah and THEY can put the defines in (RH used to do this fwiw as a
>> generic "this is a RH kernel" define)....
>>
>> but afaik no distro vendor backports such an api change nowadays... and
>> hasn't in 2.6 ever
>
> People backport drivers all the time that must support a wide range of kernels.

I thought the argument was not that drivers are back ported but that
internal kernel APIs changes aren't backported.  So that testing
the kernel version actually has a chance as a reasonable test for
features.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/