Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: revert exports to restore old behaviour

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This does not apply since we do not have a stable in-kernel API, and 
> therefore changes to the in-kernel API can by definition not be 
> regressions.
>
> 2.6.24 most likely contains hundreds of changes and removals of 
> in-kernel APIs that existed in 2.6.23.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that e.g. every single change to any struct 
> under include/ [1] would require an announcement x kernel releases 
> before it can be implemented?

Well, no, but that's not the point.

You're not addressing the substance of this specific issue, which is
simply whether rdmsr/wrmsr and pmd_val/make_pmd are actually internal
interfaces that drivers have no business in using, or are they
legitimate interfaces?  If not, then what interface *should* drivers be
using to do these things?  They seem like perfectly reasonable things
for a driver to want to do, and I don't see any inherent problem with
these interfaces.

It's not like we need to curtail these interfaces for any technical
reason.  It's pretty much the arbitrary result of me choosing to type
"_GPL" rather than leaving it off.  Refusing to correct what amounts to
a typo seems petty.

    J
-
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/