Message-ID: <3EC95B58.7080807@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:31:52 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Organization: Zytor Communications
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Recent changes to sysctl.h breaks glibc
References: <20030519165623.GA983@mars.ravnborg.org>	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0305191039320.16596-100000@home.transmeta.com>	<babhik$sbd$1@cesium.transmeta.com> <m1d6ie37i8.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1d6ie37i8.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1242
Lines: 36

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> ABI changes or ABI additions?
> 
> If the ABI is not fixed that is a bug.  Admittedly some interfaces
> in the development kernel are still under development and so have not
> stabilized on an ABI but that is a different issue.
> 

ABI fixes and ABI additions, as well as outright ABI changes (yes they
suck, but they happen.)
> 
>>ABI headers is the only realistic solution.  We
>>can't realistically get real ABI headers for 2.5, so please don't just
>>break things randomly until then.
> 
> As the ABI remains fixed I remain unconvinced.  Multiple implementations
> against the same ABI should be possible.  The real question which is the
> more scalable way to do the code.

The ABI doesn't remain fixed.  Like everything else it evolves.

> What I find truly puzzling is that after years glibc still needs
> kernel headers at all.

What I find truly puzzling is that obviously intelligent people like
yourself still seem to think that ABIs remain fixed.

	-hpa


-
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/