[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUEAxFqwU4beeXYpdyRAO6yDRSNvcBqhvpMVORy00ySgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:36:28 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > I remain opposed to this half thought out trash of an ABI for the
>> > meta-data.
>>
>> You don't have to enable the metadata if you don't want to use it, it's
>> an option :)
>
> OK, _that_ argument needs to be stomped out. It had been used before,
> and it was a deliberate scam. There is no such thing as optional kernel
> interface, especially when udev/dbus/systemd crowd is nearby. We'd been
> through that excuse before; remember how devtmpfs was pushed in as "optional"?
>
> This is a huge red flag. On the level of "I need your account information
> to transfer $200M you might have inherited from my deceased client".
>
> Just to recap how it went the last time around: Kay kept pushing his piece of
> code into the tree, claiming that it was optional, that nobody who doesn't
> like it has to enable it, so what's the problem? OK, in it went. And pretty
> soon udev (maintained by the same... meticulously honorable person) had
> stopped working on the kernels that didn't have that enabled.
>
> We had been there before. To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable
> person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into the
> kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with
> adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack.
It appears that, if kdbus is merged, upstream udev may end up requiring it:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
Grumble.
--Andy
--
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