[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d79261c0-f2ae-0ed8-96b6-fb4d1677e3dc@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:24:42 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
kai.svahn@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, josh@...htriplett.org,
luto@...nel.org, kai.huang@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support
On 4/18/19 10:10 AM, Dr. Greg wrote:
> In addition, the driver breaks all existing SGX software by breaking
> compatibility with what is a 3+ year ABI provided by the existing
> driver. This seems to contravene the well understood philosophy that
> Linux doesn't, if at all possible, break existing applications,
Sorry, that doesn't apply to out-of-tree modules. While we don't go out
of our way to intentionally break apps who are relying on out-of-tree
modules, we also don't go our of or way to keep them working.
Please stop asking about this. I don't see any route where it's going
to change.
Companies ideally shouldn't be getting their customers hooked on
out-of-tree ABIs and customers should consume out-of-tree ABIs
*expecting* them to break in the future.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists