[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI)

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 wrote:

> > The problem with the hooks is very simple - they promote every
> > bloody implementation detail to exposed API. ....
> Surely not, having the kernel source does that. The alternative to the hook
> is embed a patch in the kernel source. What proveds greater exposure to
> internals: hooks of source?

Sorry. You don't "embed" the patch. You either get it accepted or not.
Or you fork the tree and then it's officially None Of My Problems(tm).
If your private patch breaks because of the kernel changes - too fscking
bad, it's still None Of My Problems(tm). With hooks you have a published

Alternative to hook is not a random patch. It's finding a way to use public
APIs (possibly at the cost of redesigning your code) or finding good arguments
for changing said APIs (ditto). And they'ld better be really good. "I don't
know how to do that without rethinking my code" doesn't cut it. Deal. There
is _no_ warranty that anything other than public APIs will not change at any
random moment. Period. You play with layering violations - you _will_ shoot
yourself in foot. It's not "if", it's "when".

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.064 / U:1.984 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site