Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:12:05 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules |
| |
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary > modules. So I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people > react. [...]
ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing markers into unfixable modules, tomorrow it's marker use by such modules) has only one clear and predictable effect: it turns marker calls into essential ABIs because when faced with any breakage in an unfixable module that makes use of a marker in some kernel subsystem then all the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the kernel subsystem maintainers that use markers.
unfixable modules should only be allowed access to easy things they can access anyway, or to such fundamental things which we wont realistically change anyway. Markers are neither.
(i also find it puzzling why you go out on a limb helping a piece of _irrelevant_ technology that has been the unparalleled source of pain and anguish to both kernel users and kernel developers.)
Ingo
| |