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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the usage of DEBUG_DRIVER seems ambiguous
    ... If there is a narrow usage of ... the macro, e.g. to indicate a debug level, it could become something ... Rename to A2065_DEBUG or LANCE_DEBUG. ... Where is this header file used anyway? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Conditional linking
    ... header file. ... I currently go to the output folder and rename the exe for ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: undefined references to functions when linking
    ... included the header file t1.h in subprog.c. ... Using gcc, I can compile ... In function call_funcs undefined reference to f2 ... Got it sorted...had to rename a few functions and that cleared ...
    (comp.lang.c)