From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272007AbTGYKpj (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:45:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272008AbTGYKpf (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:45:35 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:14465 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272007AbTGYKpe (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:45:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:10:25 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200307251110.h6PBAPVO000497@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: john@grabjohn.com, ml@basmevissen.nl Subject: Re: time for some drivers to be removed? Cc: diegocg@teleline.es, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > A CONFIG_KNOWN_BROKEN option is a good thing, in the case where, > > E.G. a SCSI driver is broken, and will randomly corrupt data, but > > otherwise compiles and appears to work. > > I agree on that. > > Maybe I should make my point more clear. What bothers me is that a lot > of (early 2.4) kernel versions could easely be configured non-compiling. > Not just for exotic configurations, but also when building for an > average PC. > > That is very confusing (and anoying) for all kernel builders, as you can > not always easely tell if the kernel doesn't compile because of > misconfiguration or because of code errors. > > I hope that this can be avoided for 2.6.0. "Fixing" device drivers by > calling them obsolete, is not the right way. Because drivers that are > broken and fixed by nobody might not be obsolete. > > So for 2.6.0, I propose to only mark obsolete what is really obsolete. > Maybe everything that is broken since 2.2 and nobody complained about > it. Then, mark broken what is broken for some time and nobody is > (currenly) willing/able to fix. Hmmm, maybe it's just me, but I think of obsolete as meaning something that's due to be removed whether it works or not, because it's functionality is no longer required. I thought we had CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL for not sufficiently tested code. It always used to be that with no CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL tagged code compiled in, it was very rare to get a compile failiure. You could rely on any kernel building, as long as you didn't touch CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. Unfortunately, what seems to have happened is that things that really should be tagged with CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL, are so desired by a lot of users that they are being moved out of the experimental phase too soon. John.