On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:56:20 +0100 Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:38:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:15:20 -0700 > > Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I believe Russell is referring to the removal of the ioctl, not the > > > > > compile breakage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be interesting information (although I have a vague feeling > > > > that > > > > it has been discussed before). > > > > > > Yes: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/27/291 > > > (now that Harvey reminded me/us) > > > > oh, OK, whatever, that's easy. I dropped the old patch and queued this > > one: > > I'll spend some time this coming weekend working out precisely what it > requires from the ioctl interface - maybe we can have a cut-down ioctl > interface that bolts straight on as an "add on" to the new controls > without being too invasive, while still allowing its PCMCIA bits to > work. umm, well, a) as your machine still needed the ioctl code, we can assume that there are others out there. So it's unclear that we _can_ delete it, or change its interfaces. b) the rate of change in that code is very close to zero. I'd say just let it be. It's not a good use of one's time? _______________________________________________ Linux PCMCIA reimplementation list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pcmcia
