[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Fixing the lm-sensors/i2c mess

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
There real problem is that the new modules changed the API in an
incompatible way.  This could be easily fixed by adding the old methods
back, what about escalating this back to upstream?  This affects a lot
more than just Debian.

I think you are mostly wrong. The modules changed the API, yes, and the ABI as well. It appears that it cannot be trivially fixed by adding the old methods back since data structures have changed.

Upstream is *not* going to fix this in your preferred way -- they've had months to, they've been told about it repeatedly, and they have clearly expressed no interest in doing so. Upstream's preferred way is to patch all the other i2c drivers to match, which they have apparently done (see below). It's up to Debian to deal with this, I'm afraid.

(You are correct that this affects more than just Debian, of course.)

* Herbert Xu: Apply the upstream patches in http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/devel/i2c/
to the kernel-source-2.4.22, and kernel-source-2.4.23 packages.

This totally breaks the i2c API is not an option for a 2.4 package.
Yes, and it is totally an option for a 2.4 package. Every 2.4.xx kernel version has broken APIs and ABIs. :-P

Perhaps a *separate* set of kernel-source-2.4.23-lm-sensors-compatible packages, since it is preferred not to break compatibility within a subminor version? That seems reasonable.

But if it's not acceptable, then one of the following needs to be done:
* lm-sensors needs to be dropped for 2.4 kernels entirely (is that acceptable to you?) * lm-sensors needs to document its incompatibility with ALL DEBIAN 2.4 KERNELS. (Is that acceptable to you?)

Please make sure the mod_inc_use_count / mod_dec_use_count methods
are still present in the i2c function vectors and at the same problem
as before.  Then most of the problems will just magically disappear.
Since you believe that this is so easy, why don't you write and submit a patch in this manner fixing everything? For that matter, why didn't you do so months ago? I notice that you haven't. The Debian maintainer doesn't appear to feel capable of doing so, nor does upstream -- I wouldn't dare to. You want to, feel free to do so!

Adding the 'new' i2c code will just trade breakade with the lm_sensors
modules vs breakage with other i2c modules.
Yep. The 'new' i2c patches, however, are supposed to contain fixes for all the known drivers in the kernel tree which use i2c; did you even *look* at the page? That doesn't sound like it will create breakage to me.

Sorry for the hostility, but it sounds to me like you're talking out of your ass. Explain the situation in more detail with better information than mine. Propose a solution that's better than mine. You've done neither. Sending it back to upstream is a good recipe for not getting anything done at all.

Reply to: