[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702281814380.4255@jikos.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:25:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] HID and USB HID update for 2.6.21-rc2
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The diffstat looks larger because the usbhid code is moved from
> > USB-specific directory to HID-specific directory
> No. The diffstat looks huge because you moved "hid_blacklist" into a
> header file, and that is a big enough change that git won't consider the
> rename to be just a rename any more (you basically moved the old
> usbdrivers/usb/input/hid-core.c file into *two* files: hid-core.c and
> usbhid.h).
Yes, but was done by two separate commits, diffstat -M for
3d5af52d0997d545995d8747c8057be5dee49b14 shows hid-core.c as a 100%
rename, but later commit b41ea57c01a1943ab36af0017cfc1329815af9ce splits
it, so in cummulative diffstat it doesn't show it as a rename.
> Why do that? It now gets included INTO EVERY DAMN FILE that includes
> <usbhid.h>, since that one now has that
> static const struct hid_blacklist
> definition in it. Yet *nothing* wants it, except for the one C file that
> it used to be in.
You're right that usbhid.h is not a best place for it. The thing is that
hid_blacklist[] and related things just badly needs cleanup - it has been
for quite a long time placed on a really random place in the middle of a
.c file. In addition to that, the corresponding #defines are scatthered
around, interleaved with functions (see for example where
USB_VENDOR_ID_PANJIT and USB_VENDOR_ID_TURBOX defines are).
> I'm also not going to pull it if you just add a new commit to undo the
> idiocy. That thing needs to be totally re-done, as far as I'm concerned. I
> don't want to touch anything that has EVER even *seen* anything that
> stupid.
This IMHO just needs cleanup. Will you accept creating a separate header
file solely for purposes of this blacklist and related defines?
Otherwise I will just drop this cleanup, but I still think that the
current situation is horrible.
> Yes, I'm grumpy. I don't like big changes at this stage, and if they are
> also STUPID big changes, as this seems to be, I refuse to pull them
> entirely.
Are you also opposed to just the code movement? There are some bugfixes I
think that really need merging, so just to know what would be acceptable
for you at the time being.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists