Re: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:54:05 +1000


David S. Miller writes:
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:21:28 +1000
> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
>
> David S. Miller writes:
> > So that people don't "only recompile their drivers" and the driver
> > code actually get updated and fixes done by or sent to the maintainer!
>
> Sigh. Maybe people don't understand my question. Let me ask it another
> way: did you want people to go in and manually insert NULL for the new
> flush() method and then go and recompile? If so, how is that better
> then automatic structure initialisation to NULL?
>
> Because, pinhead, this way you go look and see what the hell it is,
> and consider "Hey, do I need a flush() operation?" Instead of "a-huh,
> it compiled, it must work and be ok with the changes made this kernel
> release... uh-huh"

Well, first, conehead (hey, let's get abusive, it does so much good;
BTW: Linus may have gived you the OK to call him "pinhead", but I
haven't given you permission to abuse me), that isn't what
happens. Most driver writers will just insert NULL.

Secondly, looking at the patch, *ONLY* NFS implements the flush()
method. Every driver just plugs NULL in there. Anybody who even
bothers to look at the patch (to find out what other drivers do rather
than just automatically plugging in NULL) and sees all these NULL
flush() methods will *obviously* plug in NULL.

So your argument doesn't hold water. Unless there is some other hidden
assumption, inserting the flush() method rather than appending it
simply conferred *NO* benefit and generated lots of breakage.

Regards,

Richard....

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html