On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST) David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200 > > > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of > > code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI > > absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool, > > that worked really well for Xlib. > > read() still works the same way it did 30 years ago last time I > checked. Thats disingenous as read() is a method not an interface. It's also wrong because read() and write() behaviour has changed in various ways and old code broke because of it in subtle ways. Keeping the same method behaviour would have required things like new versions of read() for 64bit files, nonblocking, mandlocks, NFS, networking, etc all of which changed the core read() behaviour. I've yet to see anyone meaningfully argue it was the wrong thing to do. Alan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
