Philip Blundell (pb@nexus.co.uk)
Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:00:27 +0100
>Why should' t we warn pardevice developers that LURK does mean nothing?
>Should I change it in: printk("this is a harmless message:
>parport%d...."); ;-)?
The warning does no good. Next time the developer recompiles his driver he
will see that LURK doesn't exist in any case. Since the driver passing in the
LURK flag does absolutely no harm either we might as well just leave it alone.
>Note that parport internals changed ~one year ago and nobody in one year
>has learn that LURK means nothing (they preferred to implement the null
>preempt function instead). So I still think it' s needed (as KERN_DEBUG).
At the time we deliberately didn't widely advertise the fact that LURK had
ceased to have meaning, because I was worried we might have to reintroduce it
later. I think we can now be fairly confident that's not the case.
p.
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:18:25 EST