Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:37:00 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, teg@jklm.no,
        jkosina@suse.cz, luto@amacapital.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        daniel@zonque.org, dh.herrmann@gmail.com, tixxdz@opendz.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
Message-ID: <20150413203700.GA1760@kroah.com>
References: <20150413190350.GA9485@kroah.com>
 <8738434yjk.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20150413194217.GA10837@kroah.com>
 <20150413202233.GR889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150413202233.GR889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2051
Lines: 43

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:22:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > I remain opposed to this half thought out trash of an ABI for the
> > > meta-data.
> > 
> > You don't have to enable the metadata if you don't want to use it, it's
> > an option :)
> 
> OK, _that_ argument needs to be stomped out.  It had been used before,
> and it was a deliberate scam.  There is no such thing as optional kernel
> interface, especially when udev/dbus/systemd crowd is nearby.  We'd been
> through that excuse before; remember how devtmpfs was pushed in as "optional"?
> 
> This is a huge red flag.  On the level of "I need your account information
> to transfer $200M you might have inherited from my deceased client".
> 
> Just to recap how it went the last time around: Kay kept pushing his piece of
> code into the tree, claiming that it was optional, that nobody who doesn't
> like it has to enable it, so what's the problem?  OK, in it went.  And pretty
> soon udev (maintained by the same... meticulously honorable person) had
> stopped working on the kernels that didn't have that enabled.
> 
> We had been there before.  To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable
> person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into the
> kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with
> adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack.
> 
> IMO either it's OK without "if you don't like it, don't enable it", or it
> should not be merged at all.

We want it.  I want it.  Andy asked for the option to be disabled as he
didn't want it, so it was made that way.  I'll gladly put that back in,
as I don't know of any problems with it, other than Eric's vague rants
about the issue.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/