linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm request 3

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:	Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:17:07 +0700
From:	"C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@...hscale.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb@...il.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	dri-devel@...ts.sf.net,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm request 3

Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>   
>> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
>> cleanup/feature/etc is:
>>
>>  - wrong
>>
>>  - harmful
>>
>>  - limits the developer base
>>
>>  - limits the tester base
>>
>>  - wastes time and effort. (fewer developers/testers means that while _this_
>>   feature was easier to add, all your _future_ features will be a bit harder
>>   to do. It compounds up.)
>>
>>  - so it hurts even the very developer who is most convinced that this was the
>>   right thing to do
>>
>> It's a bad technical decision throughout. It's masochistic and often suicidal
>> to just about any project in essence. I've seen projects that did it once and
>> died just due to that single act of stupidity. I've seen projects that have
>> done it a few times and took the usage hit, limped along with the wounds and
>> never grew to the size they could have achieved. I've seen projects that did
>> it once, took the hit, learned from it and never did it again.
>>     
>
> Agreed. What bothers me in this discussion is that people keep
> bringing up the fact that nouveau is mostly developed by volunteers
> and thus it doesn't make sense to make sure it's backwards (or
> forwards) compatible. But the way I see it, it's the complete
> opposite. It's _more_ important to support ABIs for community-driven
> efforts because you're relying on people who by definition don't have
> time to waste. While the nouveau people might have good intentions,
> I'm afraid they might be severely limiting their developer and tester
> base because they're not focused on real world problems (like the ones
> Linus is seeing).
staging != stable

Nobody guaranteed a stable API for staging and in fact it was stated 
previously it needed to be changed.  Please lets just get back to work 
and stop declaring the sky is falling.
--
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/