On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 19:00 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Sam Ravnborg <s...@ravnborg.org> wrote: > > In this thread we have covered one rational reason to push thus > > burden to user space - to give the kernel the freedom to repair > > past stupidity (being that in naming or some other sort). > > There's no real "burden" for heaven's sake: it's having to execute a 'cp' > every > now and then and check whether the result still builds (it will build just > fine in > the overwhelming majority of cases).
Defining what is it that encompasses "userspace", the thing that's nominally guaranteed to "not be broken", here is the real question. Is it just the ABI or is it more than that?
