Jonathan Corbet schrieb:
quoted text
> [Getting back to the older stuff...]
> 
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:34:16 +0200
> Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>>>> Just a minor nit:
>>>> Could we change the default so that if someone adds support for a new 
>>>> IGP (and misses this function) we default to either the newest or 
>>>> preferably to none? I've just seen too much poorly maintained code in 
>>>> this driver and defaulting to the oldest is hence a bad idea.
>>>> Otherwise it's fine.  
 >
quoted text
> In the absence of that, the only course of action which makes sense is
> to simply fail the initialization if an unknown chip type shows up
> there.  That's easy, and I can do it.  But, given that this was a
> "minor nit," can we leave it as-is for now? 

Yes, if you  feel too uncomfortable with changing it and agree that the 
whole stuff should be made more maintainable later on I am okay with 
letting this in as is.

quoted text
> There's a *lot* of things to clean up in this driver, I'd like to make it
 > better a step at a time rather than trying to do the whole thing at once.

This is indeed very true.


Thanks,

Florian Tobias Schandinat
--
unsubscribe notice
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/