Moore, Eric wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Why? That's against the general kernel policy...
As an example, when maintaining libata for 2.4 kernels as well as 2.6
kernels, I had a libata-compat.h file, and always just patched the
include into the kernel source at the same time I patched in the
libata-compat.h contents.
This is merely a request is all.
Supporting Red Hat and SuSE distro's is why I ask.
I don't care about 2.4 kernel. My compatibility
changes I support occur between 2.6 kernels releases,
such example is 2.6.17 and 2.6.18; e.g. SLES10 versus RHEL5
with sas transport changes. And they pull from upstream,
and I support them with interim bug fix's.
I'm not talking specifically about the 2.4 kernel, but making a
comparison between upstream, and non-upstream back compat. My example
is clearly the same as your current situation.
I think most kernel devs would NAK keeping around an empty kernel header
just for the sake of forked distro kernels.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
