Problems with kernel updates needing non-kernel changes

Jeremy Katz katzj at redhat.com
Thu Mar 22 18:29:48 UTC 2007


On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:26 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:21 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Jon Masters wrote:
> > > 
> > > Indeed. And options that are removed *must* be supported for a while. We
> > > can't have modules that loaded previously now failing just because the
> > > maintainer decided to remove a previously valid option without warning.
> > > This needs strong upstream coercion on the part of those taking patches.
> > 
> > We can always put the option back in the module just to make it load,
> > but I really don't want to be doing that all the time. Maybe I could
> > write patches that put the options back and just make them print a
> > warning saying the option is no longer valid, then send them upstream.
> > Maybe after a few iterations of that people will get the point?
> 
> That's what I was thinking...I just didn't want to think too loudly in
> case you said "Hey Jon, wanna help?" :P

Thanks for volunteering ;-)

Jeremy




More information about the Fedora-kernel-list mailing list