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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:31:29 +0000 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: daniel@...ishbar.org, skeggsb@...il.com, airlied@...ux.ie, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, dri-devel@...ts.sf.net, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [git pull] drm request 3 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org> > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200 > > > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of > > code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI > > absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool, > > that worked really well for Xlib. > > read() still works the same way it did 30 years ago last time I > checked. Thats disingenous as read() is a method not an interface. It's also wrong because read() and write() behaviour has changed in various ways and old code broke because of it in subtle ways. Keeping the same method behaviour would have required things like new versions of read() for 64bit files, nonblocking, mandlocks, NFS, networking, etc all of which changed the core read() behaviour. I've yet to see anyone meaningfully argue it was the wrong thing to do. Alan -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists