On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:18:09 -0500, Konstantin Belousov
<kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a statement that is false at least two times, if not three.
This was a question about Kernel Binary Inteface, not Application
Binary Interface.
I actually did mean to say KBI instead of ABI :-/
First, we have zero guarantees about ability to load or have a system
survive loading of the module compiled against the later kernel.
Second, we do not have real KBI definition, and KBI stability is managed
only ad-hock. E.g. VFS quite often breaks, while network or disk
controllers
drivers are usually fine.
I'll have to search my email but I had a conversation with someone whom I
trusted (I believe within the FBSD project) that either mislead me or I
misread what they were saying. Either way, thank you for the clarification.
YMMV. Snobby false statements hurt the project.
There was nothing snobby about it; I was merely using Linux as a point of
reference since most *nix users should have experience with Linux
rejecting kernel modules that weren't compiled against that exact kernel.
I could very well have said Plan9 instead but it would be meaningless
because nobody actually runs Plan9. :-)
Thanks again Konstantin :-)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
