On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:15:56AM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 09/11/2007 12:18 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:17:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>>> There is no benefit in making some rigid set of rules.
>> Is is considered beneficial to provide API stability for external modules
>> or not?
>
> If I may...
>
> Yes, it is. Just not at any significant cost and Andrew is saying that he
> considers the _UNUSED() thing not significant.
But there is no API stability for external modules this way.
It simply doesn't make sense to give the few sys_open() abusers even
more grace period while changes to the IRQ API affecting nearly everyone
are allowed without any requirements of ensuring API stability.
I'm not a fan of API stability for external modules, but if API
stability was considered important it should be done consequently and
not only for some patches that have the bad fate of having to go through
Andrew to Linus.
> Rene.
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/
