On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, matthew green wrote:

>    Then may I suggest that, unless "fairly soon" is in the next few days (say
>    this weekend), you put back Christos's "hack", and then revert it when the
>    proper fix goes in?
>
>    While I agree whole-heartedly with your expressed desire to keep the main
>    code clean, by reverting and not adding a compat-specific fix, we lose
>    useful functionality.
>
> i dunno...
>
>
> i've worked hard to remove & keep compat-specific code out of
> MI code (as has jd) and hacks like this are exactly the sort
> of thing i really dislike.  i know where jd is coming from and
> i think i support his position more than christos'.

My main beef is not that jd cleaned up MI code, but that cleanup was just
backing out a change. Doing things that way made code cleanliness come at
the cost of functionality.

My suggestion was that if the change was really coming soon, why not wait
for that change to arrive, then back this out?

> in this case, the hack is always broken somehow:
>
> 	- if it's only there with COMPAT_LINUX it means the LKM
> 	won't work
>
> 	- if it's always present it means that _everyone_ gets
> 	his behaviour not just linux binaries.

And that does what for us?

Take care,

Bill