public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: 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: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:17:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070910131759.a7b2dce7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070910195821.GH3563@stusta.de>

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:58:21 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:25:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >...
> > Also, Adrian goes on and on with weird theories about how I'm picking on
> > him.  But other patches (such as 7d12e780e003f93433d49ce78c) DO OTHER
> > STUFF.  Like simplify the code, and make it smaller, faster or more
> > maintainable or more reliable.
> 
> The unexport of sys_{open,read} actually makes the kernel smaller...
> 
> > So the tradeoff is quite different from a
> > one-liner which does nothing but kill an export.  And, contrary to his
> > claims, we _do_ put temporary back-compat wrappers in there when we
> > change interfaces on those relatively rare occasions when it is possible,
> > and when we remember to do it.
> 
> Your tradeoff misses the impact on external modules.
> 
> The unexport of sys_open will not break many modules, while
> commit 7d12e780e003f93433d49ce78c most likely broke the majority of 
> external modules.
> 
> Do we guarantee some API stability to module authors or do we not 
> guarantee this?

Neither.  We look at each change and make sensible decisions based upon a
number of factors.

> Emphasizing on API stability in the cases that don't matter much while 
> breaking the API in cases that affect most modules doesn't make any 
> sense at all.
> 
> And your "remember to do it" is an important point. As an example, every 
> change to a struct that is part of the signature of one or exportted 
> functions does change the API of all of these functions. If we offer any 
> API stability for external modules we need to review all patches that 
> touch include/ because many of them contain changes to the modules API 
> that might otherwise get missed.
> 
> Let's either continue to state that their is no stable API for external 
> modules or define some API stability rules and do whatever is required 
> for implementing them.

There is no benefit in making some rigid set of rules.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-09-10 20:18 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 [this message]
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
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=20070910131759.a7b2dce7.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox