Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:12:17 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Splitting kernel headers and deprecating __KERNEL__ |
| |
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2004, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> Then maybe this is the fundamental problem. As long as the kernel > >> doesn't recognize that an ABI is a contract, rather than an > >> imposition, kernel developers won't care. > > > That's a silly analogy. Worse, it's a very flawed analogy. > > > If you want to use a legal analogy, the ABI is not a contract, it's a > > public _license_. > > I didn't mean to use a legal analogy. I meant contract in the > software engineering sense. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Then your definition of a "contract" is flawed or your world-view has nothing to do with reality.
An ABI is not a contract. It's somebody exposing a certain set of features. It does _not_ mean that the party that gets exposed has any say wrt the features. At most he can hope that the exported set doesn't shrink or change semantically, but let's face it, even that does happen.
The Linux kernel has been very very good about this exposure, in the sense that we try very very hard not to break it. I think that's a good thing. But that in no way makes anything a "contract".
It's the same thing with CPU vendors. You as a programmer, didn't get to dictate what the CPU vendor implemented. You take it or leave it, and at most you can make suggestions about things that might make the CPU vendor sell more chips. The ISA is not a "contract" - it's just an interface that was handed down to you. You didn't get to negotiate, you got to say "yes" or "no".
Linus - 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/
| |