Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:21:25 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: ->direct_IO API change in current 2.4 BK |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-09 at 20:13, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >>I applied it because, in my ignorance, I did not noticed it would break >>the stable API. >> >>I applied it because I wanted comments useful from people (Like hch and >>others did). > > > I'm not sure I see what the fuss is about a slight API change that is > safe since it spews warnings/breaks existing code that isnt fixed. At > least one vendor kernel also has the changed API anyway
"safe" ignores the pain of people trying to support multiple kernels. Each API change like the direct_IO one introduces ifdefs. Changing a function prototype is particularly annoying because you can't create a backwards-compat wrapper
I disagree with the AC97 codec changes being merged into 2.4, too, for the same reason. Yes I recognize it is required to support new hardware. Yes I realize it vastly simplifies supporting some existing hardware. But I don't think you realize (or don't care?) about the maintenance pain created by the change. If a vendor wishes their driver to support 2.4.21 _and_ 2.4.22 (not a lot to ask), they must add a bunch of ifdef crud in their OSS driver.
Feature and API additions are _far_ less painful than API changes in the middle of a stable series.
Overall, I think we are looking at a question which needs to be answered by the community: what constitutes a stable series? when do we stop changing the API and let it stabilize? ... and I am writing a mail right now to ask that question (as requested by Marcelo and a couple others, though I wanted to do it for a while now).
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |