Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "Ulrich Windl" <> | Date | Mon, 20 May 1996 12:27:17 +0200 | Subject | Re: Dummy driver broken in pre-2.0.5 |
| |
On 20 May 96 at 9:24, Alan Cox wrote:
> > No, I think Thomas is correct that we do need an open() routine, and we > > might as well make the NULL case an error. For example, the dummy driver > > actually _had_ an open routine, but it was enabled only when compiled as > > a module. That's against the ideas of modules - I much prefer it if all > > the drivers are the same regardless of whether they are compiled as > > modules or not (that way there are no surprises). > > Not for 2.0 NO WAY. Its not the only driver that randomly breaks because of it. > > For 2.1 yes it makes sense, and also to remove the weird linked list we > sort of half pre-initialise. As Im sure you'd agree we dont want to change > the API incompatibily about 2 betas before release. Hence my latest patches
Interesting argument. Linus thinks that things should be changed, while Alan thinks it'll break the API. I think (as already indicated) that the long time undiscovered problem was the lack of proper documentation. If I think about it, each device should have an open function, but some people thought if NULL was supplied, the kernel has a suitable "cheap" open function.
Alan is against a change, because it might/will break existing drivers.
Well, I think the change should be made now, because a lot of development will aslo be done with the new, stable kernel 2.0. If the inetrface isn't clearified now, it'll take over a year until eberybody notices the new ting. See how many people still stick with 1.2...
Ulrich
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |