It is. Generally I think we should prefer to do the right thing rather
than adhering to the old API out of some principle.
Evaluate the impact on out-of-tree kernel patches (especially vendor
kernels) and if it is unacceptable then reject the change or augment the API
rather than changing it.
> I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they
> change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of
> change, IMHO.
OK, we're on to a specific case. Albeit a very small one.
I think Trond's direct IO change was right. The impact on out-of-tree code
is infinitesimal. Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and
let the XFS guys write a four-line patch. There's no point in mucking up
the kernel API to save such a small amount of work.
Or merge XFS.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/