[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions
Kay Sievers <> wrote:
> > We broke back-compatibility. The changelog _failed to tell us_ that we
> > were breaking back-compatibility. The patch wouldn't have been applied if
> > we'd been told that. At least, not without a lot of careful thought.
> >
> > The fact that the changelog failed to tell us this makes one suspect that
> > the breakage was inadvertent.
> >
> >
> > So no, upgrading HAL is not a good answer. Please fix the kernel.
> [ bunch of special-pleading ]

None of that matters or is relevant.

You took a kernel interface which was present in 2.6.10, 2.6.11, 2.6.12,
2.6.13, 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 and changed it in a non-compatible way, without
telling us that it was non-compatible and without even notifying people
that we'd gone and broken existing userspace.

We. Don't. Do. That.

Please either restore the old events so we can have a 6-12 month transition
period or revert the patch.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-22 01:28    [W:0.132 / U:8.212 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site