Re: Documentation-based solution for lm-sensors mess, pass one
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 05:04:46PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 01:42:58PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> (For instance, is there going to be a compatible i2c modules in the 2.4
> >> kernel tree for 2.4.24?... it didn't *look* like it, but if so, a lot of
> >> this needs to be made even more complicated, and I'll be happy to do so.)
> >
> >-ENONATIVESPEAKER :) Sorry, but what do you mean with the above
> >paragraph? If there will be support for 'new' (aka incomatible to
> >everything else) modules in 2.4.24?
> Yes, I want to know if that will happen. You implied that it would not
> happen.
Indeed. I'd veto that upstream.
> I also want to know if a "magic fix" version will happen: kernel modules which
> don't break anything else, but are compatible with 'new' lm-sensors. I doubt
> that, but if there is a "magic fix" version, that should certainly be
> documented. :)
Not sure. There has been some discussion on that lm_sensors list lately
that the API break might not have been a that good idea and whether/how
to do such a magic fix version. I wouldn't bet on it though and it
would probably not go into the kernel tree but stay in the lm_sensors
tree only.
Reply to: