On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:12:34AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Roughly that sounds like CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to me. But I would
> > be happy to hear if someone has a better idea.
>
> Rather than overload an existing config option, why not add one with the
> specific semantics you want: CONFIG_UNSTABLE_UABI. The problem seems
> like one which which may occur again, though one hopes not too often. I
> guess the risk is that people will leave their subsystems depending on
> it permanently (sysfs?), so it ends up being set all the time and
> becomes as useless as EXPERIMENTAL...
Then let SYSFS depend on UNSTABLE_UABI for the next 10 years and we have
an excuse for breaking the ABI with each new kernel...
Either the ABI is stable or it should not be exposed to users at all.
> J
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
