On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 01:15:30PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Le Thursday 02 April 2015 à 12:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit : > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:04:16AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Le Thursday 02 April 2015 à 01:23 -0700, Christoph Hellwig a écrit : > > > > The class ids are a hardware defintion, not a kernel API. Just use the > > > > definitions from libpci, or copy over the kernel header if you prefer > > > > it over the libpci definutions. > > > > > > I agree with Christoph, such defines would better come from > > > pciutils-devel, not the kernel. > > > > This just leads to code duplication. Projects that don't link with > > pciutils don't want to depend on it. > > Well, they don't have to depend on anything then, they can keep defining > their own named IDs. > > Please realize that 1* code duplication is impossible to avoid > completely and 2* this hardly qualifies as code duplication in the first > place (giving symbolic names to constants is not actual programming.) If it's not actual programming, why keep arguing about it? What's the problem with exporting class IDs? Zero maintainance overhead and makes life a bit easier to userspace. > > -- > Jean Delvare > SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
