Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)

[Parag Warudkar]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> What's the objection for the 9 extra lines in module.c, 2 lines in
> panic.c, and 9 lines on scripts/mod/modpost.c?  Is this some huge
> overhead that is unmaintainable?

You don't tell me why you want to do something as absurd and
incoherent as wanting users to load the modules easily and
automatically, then printing a warning about it even when user may not
have loaded it on his/her own, then taint the kernel when there is no
need to - I have repeatedly said it is very easy to see from the
module list for people to decide - not rocket science, definitely not
for developers. The whole TAINT drama is unnecessary.

Why would people run with even 24 more lines for something as absurd
as this when there is no need for the same?

Sure if you want to autoload modules on users back - do not complain
about it, do not make it official that it won't be supported since if
you do all your staging drivers are even more likely to stay there
like EXPERIMENTAL. (i.e. take out the printk , take out the TAINT) -
then it sounds less absurd.

Parag
--
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/