On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 11:29:05PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > > > If interfaces have to change, so be it. But changing the rules for > > > using them years after it's implemented and then claiming "you didn't > > > read the instructions" is pretty lame. > > > > That documentation has been in the kernel tree for almost a full year: > > It has a date on it. I'm not blind. That doesn't change the fact that > that documentation: > > > Date: Thu Apr 27 14:10:12 2006 -0700 > > postdates the interface it's describing by at *least* two years. Which > was the point of my mail that you conveniently ignored - retroactively > deciding which parts of the interface you export to userspace shouldn't be > used falls way short of best practices.
I am not disagreeing with that, that is why the config option is present. > > Anyway, yes, older code should still "just work" if you enable the > > CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED config option in the kernel, that is what it is > > there for. > > It appears to... the point was that (as far as the code is concerned) > it's a silent break. Of course, code that expects the 'current' layout > will then break when this new change is made, unless you add > CONFIG_SYSFS_SLIGHTLY_LESS_DEPRECATED? Well, the idea is that over time, older things will move under this config option. If you disable it, you will have a "cleaner" sysfs tree, but if you enable it, it should all just look the same. Now some people have proposed versioning the sysfs interface (1, 2, 3, etc.) and have a config option for that. I don't know if that's really necessary just yet, but am considering it for future changes. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
