Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:45:13 +0100 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4 future |
| |
On Tue, 2003-12-02 10:04:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote in message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312020956120.1519@home.osdl.org>: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 02:23:55 +0000, snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> > > wrote in message <200312020223.55505.snpe@snpe.co.yu>: > > > Is there linux-abi for 2.6 kernel ? > > > > Nobody really cares about ABI (at least, not enough to keep one stable) > > while there's a good API. That requires sources, though, but that's a > > good thing...
> You are, however, correct when it comes to internal kernel interfaces: we > care not at all about ABI's, and even API's are fluid and are freely > changed if there is a real technical reason for it. But that is only true > for the internal kernel stuff (where source is obviously a requirement > anyway).
Whenever The ABI Question (TM) comes up, it seems to be about claiming a (binary compatible) interface - mostly for modules. But I think it's widely accepted that there isn't much work done to have these truly (sp?) binary compatible (eg. UP/SMP spinlocks et al.).
Of course, we want to have a somewhat stable interface for libc (-> userspace), but some struct (fb_info, ...) doesn't need to be binary compatible - as long as a driver (given to be in source) still works cleanly with it:)
MfG, JBG
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |