Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:37:47 -0400 >> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>>> the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different >>>> from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 ..... >>>> it's not really ;) >>> Note my mention of backport -- kernel version isn't relevant when the >>> various >>> enterprise distros have random featuresets under random >>> kernel versions. >>> >> >> yeah and THEY can put the defines in (RH used to do this fwiw as a >> generic "this is a RH kernel" define).... >> >> but afaik no distro vendor backports such an api change nowadays... and >> hasn't in 2.6 ever > > People backport drivers all the time that must support a wide range of > kernels.
I thought the argument was not that drivers are back ported but that internal kernel APIs changes aren't backported. So that testing the kernel version actually has a chance as a reasonable test for features. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
