[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Cleanup TIF value gaps in shift range
    On 10/18/2010 02:36 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    >> The problem is that someone exports something as debugging information,
    >> then someone else suddenly thinks it's an ABI. I believe the same
    >> complainant in the past has objected to changing of formatting in dmesg,
    >> which is equally insane.
    > It's not insane if there is no other way to ascertain that information.
    > If it's available through sysfs or debugfs (and, even better, documented
    > as part of the API in Documentation/ABI), then I don't think anyone would
    > object to changing a log message. But I don't think all log messages
    > should be fair game under some general principle if they are being changed
    > (instead of just extending it) without a compelling reason, such as
    > technically being incorrect in its present form.

    YES IT IS. In fact, it is completely and totally bananas bonkers.

    By not pushing for a proper maintainable ABI, you will have an
    indefinite forward compatibility problem, and when predictably it
    breaks, you'll complain. This is, however, backwards -- the right thing
    would have been to say "I need this, this isn't available, I should add
    a maintainable API and push it upstream", and perhaps add log parsing as
    a backwards-compatibility solution.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-18 23:47    [W:0.021 / U:19.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site