[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Add kernel<->userspace ABI stability documentation
    On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:07PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:46:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
    > > Then I suggest you work with the ALSA developers to come up with such a
    > > "stable" api that never changes. They have been working at this for a
    > > number of years, if it was a "simple" problem, it would have been done
    > > already...
    > That depends on how it's being approached. Writing an ABI takes effort,
    > while it tends to be easier to simply write new code.

    I agree.

    > > Anyway, netlink is in the same category, with a backing userspace
    > > library tie :)
    > >
    > > And, I have nothing against shipping userspace libraries with the kernel
    > > like this, if people think that's the easiest way to do it. But even
    > > then, the raw interface is still "private" and you need to use the
    > > library to access it properly.
    > That's a lot easier if it gets installed with the kernel version as part of
    > the path. That might need some hacking in the dynamic linker. Before going
    > that far, it should really be a question of putting the ABI and necessary
    > extensions under a microscope to see how much stability in an ABI is
    > possible. Perhaps we've been too lax in reviewing extensions to the kernel's
    > ABI, resulting in things getting to the point where it now needs to be a
    > more explicit part of the review process.
    > Half the problem is that the bits that actually form an ABI tend to be
    > spread over random .c source files, include/asm and include/linux, so
    > catching a change is rather difficult even for experienced reviewers. It
    > might make sense to start splitting out the structure definitions into an
    > include/abi/ structure to make changes easier to spot. It'll be a lot of
    > work, but along the lines of the whole ioctl mess the end result will be
    > an easier system for users to cope with (which is the main concern in
    > maintaining an ABI -- making needless updates necessary for users and
    > software authors is something I feel we should try to avoid).

    Again, I agree. People (including Linus) have said they will accept
    something like include/abi/ (it was a different name last time that I
    can't remember), but no one has done the work yet...


    greg k-h
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-27 21:15    [W:0.021 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site