Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:21:04 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions |
| |
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@suse.de> wrote: > > > We broke back-compatibility. The changelog _failed to tell us_ that we > > were breaking back-compatibility. The patch wouldn't have been applied if > > we'd been told that. At least, not without a lot of careful thought. > > > > The fact that the changelog failed to tell us this makes one suspect that > > the breakage was inadvertent. > > > > > > So no, upgrading HAL is not a good answer. Please fix the kernel. > > [ bunch of special-pleading ] >
None of that matters or is relevant.
You took a kernel interface which was present in 2.6.10, 2.6.11, 2.6.12, 2.6.13, 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 and changed it in a non-compatible way, without telling us that it was non-compatible and without even notifying people that we'd gone and broken existing userspace.
We. Don't. Do. That.
Please either restore the old events so we can have a 6-12 month transition period or revert the patch.
- 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/
| |