![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> There must be some framework for changing the kernel ABI over time. > We can't remain forever stuck with an ABI behaviour because > of the development model (i.e., no 2.7/2.8). Hi, this has nothing to do with the development model. The userspace syscall ABI *has* to be stable. If we make a mistake that's a high price but we pay it. This fwiw is one of the reasons we are/should be very careful with adding system calls, and make sure the behavior is indeed right. It's also the reason we're not so happy about new ioctls; they're effectively mini-system calls with the same ABI issues, but just less controlled/reviewed/designed/visible. Greetings, Arjan van de Ven - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-07-07 07:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||