Re: Dummy driver broken in pre-2.0.5

Alan Cox (alan@cymru.net)
Mon, 20 May 1996 09:24:38 +0100 (BST)

> No, I think Thomas is correct that we do need an open() routine, and we
> might as well make the NULL case an error. For example, the dummy driver
> actually _had_ an open routine, but it was enabled only when compiled as
> a module. That's against the ideas of modules - I much prefer it if all
> the drivers are the same regardless of whether they are compiled as
> modules or not (that way there are no surprises).

Not for 2.0 NO WAY. Its not the only driver that randomly breaks because of it.

For 2.1 yes it makes sense, and also to remove the weird linked list we
sort of half pre-initialise. As Im sure you'd agree we dont want to change
the API incompatibily about 2 betas before release. Hence my latest patches
back it out. If someone has time to fix the lance driver to have the equivalent
of

int open_broken_lance(struct device *dev)
{
return -ENODEV;
}

if(lance_buggered)
dev->open=open_broken_lance;

Alan