From: Richard Fitzgerald <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Mark Brown <email@example.com> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Revert "use component prefix when checking widget names" Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:29:30 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210728160948.GE4670@sirena.org.uk> On 28/07/2021 17:09, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:55:23AM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote: > >> I don't mind if someone wants to change the core dapm functions if that >> is generally useful, providing that it also updates all callers of those >> functions to still work. > >> Changing the behaviour of core code to fix the Realtek driver without >> updating other callers of those functions is a problem. > > The thing here is that nobody would have thought that that any caller > would have been open coding this stuff like the component things were, On the contrary, since that was the only way to use these functions with a prefixed component it's entirely possible that there is code already adding the prefix. Why would you expect nobody has ever written code that works? > it's simply the wrong abstraction level to be implementing something Ok, but that doesn't mean that it could never have happened. > like this so people wouldn't think of auditing the callers to find uses I don't think that it's either safe or desirable to skip checking how callers use functionality that you want to change. My understanding of Linux development protocol was that if you make a change that affects other code, you are responsible for updating that other code to match. Regardless of whether you agree with how that other code was implemented. It creates a lot of overhead for everyone if it's ok to make changes without trying to fix up other code that is affected by that change.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-28 18:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-07-03 12:50 Richard Fitzgerald 2021-07-05 16:50 ` Mark Brown 2021-07-22 9:55 ` Richard Fitzgerald 2021-07-23 15:17 ` Richard Fitzgerald 2021-07-23 15:24 ` Mark Brown 2021-07-28 16:09 ` Mark Brown 2021-07-28 18:29 ` Richard Fitzgerald [this message] 2021-07-28 23:40 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Revert "use component prefix when checking widget names"' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).