[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:0.049 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site