Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751311AbbFYGGL (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:06:11 -0400 Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:56051 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750810AbbFYGF7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:05:59 -0400 From: Martin Steigerwald To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Steven Rostedt , Andy Lutomirski , Richard Weinberger , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Herrmann , Djalal Harouni , Havoc Pennington , "Eric W. Biederman" , One Thousand Gnomes , Tom Gundersen , Daniel Mack Subject: Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge? Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:05:58 +0200 Message-ID: <5286070.NYrIjcpPS3@merkaba> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.0-tp520-btrfstrim-pstatetrace+; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; git-e0fc73a; 2015-06-16) In-Reply-To: <20829057.evLRBZOrmM@merkaba> References: <20829057.evLRBZOrmM@merkaba> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2352 Lines: 49 Am Donnerstag, 25. Juni 2015, 08:01:35 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Mittwoch, 24. Juni 2015, 19:20:27 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Steven Rostedt > > wrote: > > > I don't think it will complicate things even if the API changes. The > > > distros will have to deal with that fall out. Mainline only cares > > > about > > > its own regressions. But any API changes would only be done for good > > > reasons, and give the distros an excuse to fix whatever was done wrong > > > in the first place. > > > > I don't think that's true. > > > > Realistically, every single kernel developer tends to work on a > > machine with some random distro. If that developer cannot compile his > > own kernel because his distro stops working, or has to use some > > "kdbus=0" switch to turn off the kernel kdbus and (hopefuly) the > > distro just switches to the legacy user mode bus, then for that > > developer, merging and enabling incompatible kdbus implementation is > > basically a regression. > > > > We've seen this before. We end up stuck with the ABI of whatever user > > land applications. It doesn't matter where that ABI came from. > > > > I do agree that distro's that want to enable kdbus before any agreed > > version has been merged would get to also act as guinea pigs and do > > their own QA, and handle fallout from whatever problems they encounter > > etc. That part might be good. But I don't think we really end up > > having the option to make up some incompatible kdbus ABI > > after-the-fact. > > Linus, so is that a recommendation to the distros to be careful to put > kdbus into the distro kernel right now and probably better defer it or > are you thinking that the ABI of kdbus already is suitable for merging > and you see no issues to merge a kdbus with the ABI it currently has, but > probably otherwise improved? Or, do you think, that there is a different option to handle this then the both I outlined above? -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/