Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751784AbWB0XeD (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:34:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751788AbWB0XeD (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:34:03 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net ([216.148.227.154]:42893 "EHLO rwcrmhc14.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751784AbWB0XeC (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:34:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] Add kernel<->userspace ABI stability documentation From: Nicholas Miell To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , Benjamin LaHaise , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , davej@redhat.com, perex@suse.cz, Kay Sievers In-Reply-To: <20060227210427.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20060227190150.GA9121@kroah.com> <20060227193654.GA12788@kvack.org> <20060227194623.GC9991@suse.de> <20060227210427.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:33:57 -0800 Message-Id: <1141083237.3000.5.camel@entropy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4.njm.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1370 Lines: 29 On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 21:04 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:20:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > They seem to be just excuses for bad habits. And the notion of a "private" > > interface is insane anyway, since it doesn't matter - the only thing that > > matters is whether it breaks existing binaries or not, and being "private" > > in no way makes any difference to that. If you need to compile or link > > against a new library, it's broken - whether it was "private" or not makes > > no difference. > > gregkh is being polite - s/private/but-we-are-special/ and it will make > more sense... I agree with the criticism of the private interfaces, but unstable makes sense in the new kernel development model world -- "testing" is "we're pretty sure that this is done but it might not be and we might change it in the future, so pay attention" while "unstable" is more of a "we think the design is neat, but somebody is bound to find some way we've screwed it up and it'll probably be changed in the future to fix it, so expect your programs to break". -- Nicholas Miell - 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/