On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 06:17:40PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 03:01:59PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > As Dave Miller pointed out, DEV_MAC_HID sysctl conflicts with the RAID patches
>
> That's right but OTOH I'd simply declare the sysctl-by-number interface dead
> for new introduced sysctl. We need to preserve backwards compatibility of
> course but that's not a problem. I'd preferred if we killed it completly (just
> providing backwards compatibility) during the 2.4.x cycle. Only reliable
> way to use new sysctl is sysctl-by-name IMHO.
Right. But the problem here was a new, unused sysctl-by-number, conflicted
with an old-but-not-integrated sysctl-by-number that is used. :) The only
reason I made the number match the one in 2.4 was because a) i figured it's
not going to conflict. :) and b) incase something does come along and use it.
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
