Re: PNP patch into kernel when?

Keith Rohrer (
Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:43:20 -0600 (CST)

> you ("Andrew E. Mileski" <>) wrote:
> > ...
> > The difference is of course that we are free to fool around with
> > symbols that are internal to the kernel.
> There are at least some kernel level drivers around that didn't find their
> way into the kernel. All these must be mantained too :-(
I wish there were many more of them, e.g. the horde of cdrom/ethernet/scsi
drivers... The drivers in the kernel distribution tend to get pseudo-fixed
or forgotten anyway...

> Can we do it like that:
> Introduce the new symbols. Make the old symbols some macros to call the new
> code the way we like it. Request everybody to use the new symbols. Introduce
> with 2.3 some warning message for the macros. Perhaps introduce some error
> message with 2.5 and reject the module. And with 2.7 we could delete the
> macros.
I'd accelerate that schedule: warn about names-going-away NOW, take them
away in 2.3. Macros for the interim would be okay if the good practice
of actually stopping using all the names were followed; I'm not sure all
the 2.1 changes have done so, though. And whenever we change the semantics
of something, we ought to change the name too, so that things which
expect the old behavior will break cleanly. But with macros defining
the old stuff in terms of the new stuff (where possible), the old code
will work until the new stuff changes (or a recompile is attempted)...