Re: Linux-2.4.6-pre3

From: Tim Waugh <twaugh@redhat.com>
To: Patrick Mochel <mochel@transmeta.com>
Cc: Jeff Golds <jgolds@resilience.com>, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux-2.4.6-pre3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:51:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010614095152.Y13678@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3B27DE0E.84025F41@resilience.com> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10106132305450.1433-100000@nobelium.transmeta.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10106132305450.1433-100000@nobelium.transmeta.com>; from mochel@transmeta.com on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:39:49PM -0700

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:39:49PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:

> First off, the patch went into a pre-release of the kernel. Never would I
> trust a pre-release to be stable.

The issue is that of interface stability, as I'm sure you know.

> Second of all, if you look at the big picture, you may see the benefit in
> the change that was made. There is an effort to make Linux support power
> management, both at the system-wide level and at the driver level, in a
> much better way than it ever has. These changes are a manifestation of
> that effort. 

I've no doubt that new and better functions were necessary: but
couldn't it have been done in a source-compatible way?  New functions
rather than changed ones?

> Thirdly, these functions are rarely used.

Not every single driver is in Linus' tree.

I didn't see a feature-test macro either: did I miss it?

Tim.
*/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]