|From:||Russell King - ARM Linux <linux-AT-arm.linux.org.uk>|
|To:||Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-google.com>|
|Subject:||Re: board/device file names, and machine names|
|Date:||Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:24:01 +0000|
|Cc:||Brian Swetland <swetland-AT-google.com>, Daniel Walker <dwalker-AT-codeaurora.org>, linux-arm-kernel-AT-lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm-AT-vger.kernel.org|
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:08:31PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > This to me is the biggest thing to get right --- if there is deployed > userspace which is using this name (mahimahi) in the bootloader to boot the > machine, then changing this means that it adds a barrier to users who want > to use the standard device userland, but who want to try testing their own > kernel built from mainline. Having a wide-ranging rename will be a major barrier to getting code merged - especially if google intends to keep their internal naming. It means every patch has to go through a renaming stage to be applied to both trees - that's absolute madness. There's still precious little to show in terms of progress on moving this code towards the mainline tree - let's not put additional barriers in the way. Let's keep the current naming and arrange for informative comments in files about the other names, and use the common name in the Kconfig - that way it's obvious from the kernel configuration point of view what is needed to be selected for a given platform, and it avoids the problem of having effectively two code bases.
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds