Let me put that another way - interface stability isn't just something one can wish for and expect - one has to work at it. One has to know what makes an interface stable or not. I know you know that, Dave.
A C programmer interested in interface stability should be aware, as Ragnar pointed out, that constant array size declarations are subject to change. It's just stating the obvious. What is not obvious is how to avoid using such declarations in a part of an interface that should not change.
You suggested that this particular declaration bothered you; now you know how to avoid it. And even if you don't change it now, those who've read my comments should now be able to inspect their drivers and modules to see if their use of this declaration might have been problematic without their knowing it. I think you should afford LiS uses plenty of time to deal with this situation, frankly, but I do also think that at some point, a change will be in order.
-John
Dave Grothe wrote:
At 10:58 AM 2/18/2004, John A. Boyd Jr. wrote:
I.e., if drivers break, it's because they're doing something they should never, ever do anyway.
But which they may have been doing for years. One of my complaints about the kernel guys is that they make no attempt to hold the driver-kernel interface constant even through a "stable" version of the kernel. I'm trying not to follow suit here.
-- Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.591 / Virus Database: 374 - Release Date: 2/17/2004
_______________________________________________ Linux-streams mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
