On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ronciak, John <john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 3) ...Unless the idea is for backporters to just pull the compat >> functionality into their modules (and thus not provide an actual compat >> module)? > > We don't see this as the way to go. Intel LAD has this already with our > stand-alone drivers, granted that it's our own compat code, but I don't > think you want all the different HW vendors pulling in different versions > of the compat code in to each driver. That's just going to cause > problems and confusion. And this is solved by prioritizing Linux upstream development given that once upstream you get to become part of the stable releases that incorporates all upstream modules sharing the same compat module. Deltas can be accounted for by the additional patches to stable releases, which also prioritizes and categorizes patches based on life cycle on route upstream [0]. This even supports for patches not even posted for inclusion upstream yet, like typical OEM tools / etc which typically are not addressed (yet) upstream. [0] https://backports.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Documentation/compat-drivers/additional-patches LUis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
