All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	perex@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [-mm patch] unexport sys_{open,read}
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:56:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46E5CBB5.9030101@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070910224112.GK3563@stusta.de>

On 09/11/2007 12:41 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> 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.

I agree that doing things only half is semi-regularly worse than doing them 
not at all, and this specific case might be the worst example of all, as I 
read that using sys_open/read is actively harmful, so, well...

I read the thread since I tend to keep lots of external crap around. Not in 
any way that would mean I'd have any grounds for complaining about anything; 
mostly just driver stuff in various states of completeness that I never seem 
to get around to cleaning up enough to submit to anyone.

But as such, I can comment on the fact that I'm much more likely to notice 
the warning than I am to notice a thread on LKML, say. How much more likely 
I'd be to then also actually do anything about it before it just breaks 
anyway is another matter, but again, well...

> 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.

In this case I believe it makes sense to just rip it out, but generally it 
doesn't need to be such a fully robotic yes/no decision, I'd say.

Rene.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-09-10 23:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-09-09 20:25 [-mm patch] unexport sys_{open,read} Adrian Bunk
2007-09-09 20:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-09-09 21:59   ` Andrew Morton
2007-09-09 22:22     ` Adrian Bunk
2007-09-09 22:41       ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-09-09 23:18         ` Adrian Bunk
2007-09-10  9:08     ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-09-10  9:23       ` Andrew Morton
2007-09-10 12:03         ` Adrian Bunk
2007-09-10 12:31         ` Alan Cox
2007-09-10 12:43         ` Al Viro
2007-09-10 17:25           ` Andrew Morton
2007-09-10 17:44             ` Alan Cox
2007-09-10 17:54               ` Andrew Morton
2007-09-13 23:23                 ` Greg KH
2007-09-10 19:58             ` Adrian Bunk
2007-09-10 20:17               ` Andrew Morton
2007-09-10 22:18                 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-09-10 22:15                   ` Rene Herman
2007-09-10 22:41                     ` Adrian Bunk
2007-09-10 22:56                       ` Rene Herman [this message]
2007-09-10 15:14         ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-09-25 21:17           ` Dave Jones
2007-09-10 12:18   ` David Miller
2007-09-10 12:21     ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-09-18 14:10     ` Adrian Bunk
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-22  9:06 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 Andrew Morton
2007-08-27 21:27 ` [-mm patch] unexport sys_{open,read} Adrian Bunk
2007-08-27 22:53   ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-08-27 23:17     ` Adrian Bunk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=46E5CBB5.9030101@gmail.com \
    --to=rene.herman@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bunk@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=perex@suse.cz \
    --cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.