[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131203155153.2b5488d2@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:51:53 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@...aro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures
in public headers
> > If Konrad and Boris agree that breaking the kernel's ABI in this way is
> > acceptable in this specific case, I'll defer to them.
>
> My opinion as Xen on ARM hypervisor maintainer is that this is the right
> thing to do in this case.
Sounds to me like the difference between "product" and "research toy".
You don't break back compatibility in a product when you can avoid it.
You may wish the publically humiliate those responsible (Linus seems to)
but at the end of the day it's done.
Your boolean choice is a false one anyway - you can do at least three
different things
- Implement and tell people to use the new API, break everyone's PoC and
deployed systems, prevent old kernels running on newer Xen and
generally make users lose confidence in it
- Keep the erroneous API and live with the uglies
- Keep the erroneous API working but implement a new clean API (and
possibly make misuse produce a one per boot whine about fixing your
kernel)
The Linux approach has tended to be the last one most of the time,
coupled with Linus having a rant 8)
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