lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4 future
On Tue, 2003-12-02 10:04:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
wrote in message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312020956120.1519@home.osdl.org>:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 02:23:55 +0000, snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu>
> > wrote in message <200312020223.55505.snpe@snpe.co.yu>:
> > > Is there linux-abi for 2.6 kernel ?
> >
> > Nobody really cares about ABI (at least, not enough to keep one stable)
> > while there's a good API. That requires sources, though, but that's a
> > good thing...

> You are, however, correct when it comes to internal kernel interfaces: we
> care not at all about ABI's, and even API's are fluid and are freely
> changed if there is a real technical reason for it. But that is only true
> for the internal kernel stuff (where source is obviously a requirement
> anyway).

Whenever The ABI Question (TM) comes up, it seems to be about claiming a
(binary compatible) interface - mostly for modules. But I think it's
widely accepted that there isn't much work done to have these truly (sp?)
binary compatible (eg. UP/SMP spinlocks et al.).

Of course, we want to have a somewhat stable interface for libc (->
userspace), but some struct (fb_info, ...) doesn't need to be binary
compatible - as long as a driver (given to be in source) still works
cleanly with it:)

MfG, JBG

--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans