[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CBCBF9D.1060409@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:43:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Cleanup TIF value gaps in shift range
On 10/18/2010 02:36 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> The problem is that someone exports something as debugging information,
>> then someone else suddenly thinks it's an ABI. I believe the same
>> complainant in the past has objected to changing of formatting in dmesg,
>> which is equally insane.
>>
>
> It's not insane if there is no other way to ascertain that information.
> If it's available through sysfs or debugfs (and, even better, documented
> as part of the API in Documentation/ABI), then I don't think anyone would
> object to changing a log message. But I don't think all log messages
> should be fair game under some general principle if they are being changed
> (instead of just extending it) without a compelling reason, such as
> technically being incorrect in its present form.
YES IT IS. In fact, it is completely and totally bananas bonkers.
By not pushing for a proper maintainable ABI, you will have an
indefinite forward compatibility problem, and when predictably it
breaks, you'll complain. This is, however, backwards -- the right thing
would have been to say "I need this, this isn't available, I should add
a maintainable API and push it upstream", and perhaps add log parsing as
a backwards-compatibility solution.
-hpa
--
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