> My answer would be to go right
> ahead, fix all the obviously broken code that you find, and not worry
> about what Becker thinks. The only approval that I would consider
> getting is Linus's. Of course, make sure that it works the same way
> first so that 50 million other lines of code do not need to be
> rewritten. Or is that how broken the code is? :)
Well, everywhere "tbusy" appears in a network driver, someone has to
figure out *how* it was being used, and either change the name (if
it was being used "right") or *fix* it. That's not going to be quick,
especially for someone who's not familiar with a given driver, since
all drivers seem to use it the "right" way in addition to some/most
drivers "misusing" it.
This whole controversy seems to stem from inadequate or outdated kernel
internals documentation. Unfortunately, the right solution (i.e. thorough
documentation of the kernel that gets updated when things get changed)
isn't really worth anybody's time or money to do...or, if it is, only
for the reason Hawking's _A Brief History of Time_ sold...
Keith (least-read bestseller of the decade, I heard...)
-- "The avalanche has already started; |Linux: http://www.linuxhq.com |"Zooty, it is too late for the pebbles to |KDE: http://www.kde.org | zoot vote." Kosh, "Believers", Babylon 5 |Keith: kwrohrer@enteract.com | zoot!" www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html |http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer | --Rebo- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/