[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aHSmQ0AcZA-FUk4M@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:40:03 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
"Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>,
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] unwind: Export unwind_user symbol to GPL modules
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:10:06AM -0700, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> It is odd to read this claimed benefit when viewing it from the wider
> Linux kernel project. Upstream maintenance of ABI contracts is the
> fundamental struggle of subsystems. The request, "can we get the kernel
> out of the way and maintain our own ABI to our users?" is a consistent
> refrain, and it consistently receives a qualified "no" for regression,
> security, and other interface evolution concerns.
Exactly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists