Re: [PATCH 0/13] 2.6.7-rc1-mm1, Simplify DMI matching data

[Andrey Panin]

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@xxxxxxxxx		| PGP key: wwwkeys.pgp.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature