linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:36:32 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	lmb@...e.de
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, lars.ellenberg@...bit.com,
	arjan@...radead.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, neilb@...e.de,
	hch@...radead.org, James.Bottomley@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bart.vanassche@...il.com,
	davej@...hat.com, gregkh@...e.de, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	kyle@...fetthome.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	nab@...ux-iscsi.org, knikanth@...e.de, philipp.reisner@...bit.com,
	sam@...nborg.org, Mauelshagen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:20:34 +0200
Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@...e.de> wrote:

> On 2009-09-22T07:27:21, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > > If it happens, once that happens, that _will_ be an ABI break.
> > 
> > You misunderstand the raid unification.
> > 
> > We will not unify the kernel<->userspace configuration interface
> > because we can't break the kernel<->userspace ABI.
> 
> I disagree here. Who says we can't over time, and with due notice?
> 
> For sure, the new ABI needs to co-exist with the old ones for a while,
> until it is proven and fully complete, but then, why can't the old one
> be marked as depreciated and phased out over 1-2 years time?

Let me know If you find a Linux storage developer who say, "Yeah, we
can remove the md ABI over 1-2 years time after the raid unification".

Seems that you have a very different idea from other kernel developers
about the stable ABI.


> > We plan to unify the multiple device frameworks, but the unified
> > framework must support the all existing ABIs.
> > 
> > So adding another 'drbd' ABI hurts us.
> 
> Even that doesn't really apply, I think. If the new framework is
> powerful enough and a super-set of everything that came before, the shim
> layer will be somewhat annoying, but harmless code.

Improving the existing framework is a proper approach.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/