Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 May 2004 17:46:00 +0400 | From | Andrey Panin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/13] 2.6.7-rc1-mm1, Simplify DMI matching data |
| |
On 149, 05 28, 2004 at 03:23:58PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 01:54:47PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:18:52PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > simplify DMI blacklist table by removing the need to fill > > > > unused slots with NO_MATCH macro. > > > > > > Can you please delay that patch for 2.7? > > > 2.6 is for bug fixes, not for cleanups. > > > > > > There are large third party patchkits for DMI and "cleaning up" > > > the format will just cause lots of rejects and pain. > > > > Alternatively, those third parties could get their act > > together and submit those patches back upstream. > > Often this is not the best thing to do - e.g. for upstream it is > better to track down the bugs and try to fix them, even if that > takes a long time or find some other cleaner solution that doesn't > involve blacklisting. For a third party there are often time constraints > (e.g. for a release) where there is no time to track down everything and > blacklisting has to be more extensively used.
See the next patch then, it should make life of third party developers much simpler. Also I can modify the patch to provide NO_MATCH constant, so there will be no visible differencies.
> My point stays that kernel interfaces should stay stable in the stable > series as far as possible (= unless terminally broken, but that's > clearly not the case here). If you feel the need to clean up > something better wait for the unstable series.
I can't call dmi_scan.c a kernel interface, currently it's a crap.
-- Andrey Panin | Linux and UNIX system administrator pazke@donpac.ru | PGP key: wwwkeys.pgp.net [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |