Re: DRM function pointer work..

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 05:54:52PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Yes, while I support the current rework and de-templatization of the code, I 
> don't support any attempt to split the drm modules to try and share code at 
> runtime - ie. I don't support a core/submodule approach.

We had that argument already in 2000/2001 when we had the big XFree 4.1 DRM
update.  There's no reason drm should be different from all other kernel
subsystems.  If you really fear this is a problem add a monotonely increasing
DRM_VERSION define for driver to check against and even better don't make any
not backwards-compatible changes unless you're doing a major version bump.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/