Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 14:02 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Mike Oliver wrote:
>>
>>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think this case would benefit from explicitly stating what will
>>>>> happen to <sys/bpp_io.h> and the interfaces it defines. There are
>>>>> currently consumers in the kernel (ecpp, usbprn) and the userland
>>>>> (LP subsystem, 3rd party apps).
>>>>>
>>>>> -Artem
>>>>>
>>>> If there are other consumers that depend on it, then I would *not* be
>>>> removing the header file. To be honest, I hadn't tried searching
>>>> with OpenGrok to find out who was using these header files.
>>>>
>>> Sun Ray's parallel port driver depends on <sys/bpp_io.h>.
>>>
>> That's fine. It looks like I'll be leaving the header in place. I've
>> no problem with that.
>>
>
> The header file defines a bunch of ioctls that are no longer usable
> given that this case removes the device that implements them. What do
> we gain from leaving the header file behind? If it's just to save a few
> developers from having to remove a single #include from their source
> code, then is it really worth it?
>
No, other drivers use this header to implement the same ioctls.
- Garrett
> -Seb
>
>
>
