Re: [PATCH] fix: macros to detect existance of unlocked_ioctl and compat_ioctl

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:10:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ...
> > And as for that "policy", it's been stated in public by Andrew and
> > Linus and me (if I count for anything, doubtful...) a number of
> > documented times.
> 
> not me ;) It's two lines of code and makes things much simpler for the
> users of our work.  Seems a no-brainer.

Sorry, the "policy" I was referring to was the "out-of-the-tree drivers
are on their own" statement.  Not the use of the HAVE macros.

> And practically speaking, we don't make such fundamental driver-visible
> changes _that_ often - if we end up getting buried under a proliferation of
> HAVE_FOO macros, then the presence of the macros is the least of our
> problems, yes?

Ok, but can someone add a section in the feature-removal-schedule.txt
file about when these specific macros will be removed?  They must be
created with some specific use in mind, right?

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/