Re: [2.6 patch] mark the mcd cdrom driver as BROKEN

[Bill Davidsen]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:24:56AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 06:22:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Adrian,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>The mcd driver drives only very old hardware (some single and double 
> > >>>speed CD drives that were connected either via the soundcard or a 
> > >>>special ISA card), and the mcdx driver offers more functionality for
> > >>>the  same hardware.
> > >>>
> > >>>My plan is to mark MCD as broken in 2.6.11 and if noone complains 
> > >>>completely remove this driver some time later.
> > >>>(...)
> > >>>-	depends on CD_NO_IDESCSI
> > >>>+	depends on CD_NO_IDESCSI && BROKEN
> > >>
> > >>Shouldn't we introduce a DEPRECATED option for use in cases like this
> > >>one?
> > >
> > >
> > >We could.
> > >
> > >We could also list MCD in Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt 
> > >first.
> > >
> > >But in this case I doubt it makes any difference.
> > >
> > >This driver is for hardware where I doubt many users exist today, and it 
> > >should have been removed nearly ten years ago when the better mcdx 
> > >driver for the same now-obsolete hardware entered the kernel.
> > 
> > I actually have one (or two) of these, but I agree that in this case it 
> > makes no difference. As a general thing I think DEPRECIATED would be 
> > useful for the case where there is a newer functional driver. The 
> > systems I have are unlikely to ever run a current kernel, so I am not 
> > affected, and I suspect most others who have this old stuff are running 
> > 2.0 or 2.2 kernels, also.
> 
> Are you using the mcd or the mcdx driver?
> 
> At 2.2 times, I also had such a drive.
> But I didn't observe any need for the mcd driver that was already 
> outdated at that time.

Exactly, that one can go for sure.
> 
> The mcd driver should perhaps have been removed 10 years ago when the 
> mcdx driver was introduced. You could start today with deprecating the 
> mcd driver instead of a quick removal of this driver. But why? The 
> question is whether the number of people using one of these drives with 
> a 2.6 kernel is above zero or not - not whether we need one or two 
> drivers for them.

In case my first note wasn't clear, I'm in favor of DEPRECIATED as a
supported feature, the mcd driver can just go away I would think. I
believe I'm using the mcdx driver in my old systems, but whatever is there
is presumably going to stay in the old kernels, and I can't imagine ever
building another kernel for a box that old. They are happily chugging
along, and when they die they will go to the 2nd hand store. If the disks
have anything requiring disposal (I think not), I will drill a few holes
in them before scrapping.

If it wouldn't be a LOT of work, I would think that using a DEPRECIATED
driver could be noted in some way in an oops, like tainted. That's just a
thought, feel free to comment, but don't expect me to defend the idea, I'm
just sharing it.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

-
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/