From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756937Ab0CDTdG (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:33:06 -0500 Received: from outbound-mail-313.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:59604 "HELO outbound-mail-313.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753581Ab0CDTdE (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:33:04 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=RmMPtDsReg4XnIewbrtT6fXsz7Y4+oX35Nx7FDkK3bG5Lkl4Cgd2Dr5CkxLa0KlismABtjyvbOXytTZ+++3+8VyUmhw+IkW+5OUdJiJrprU7V1E6Tf/WMNntQfI6i3T5; Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:33:06 -0800 From: Jesse Barnes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.sf.net Subject: Re: [git pull] drm request 3 Message-ID: <20100304113306.6c4fd782@jbarnes-piketon> In-Reply-To: References: <20100304103655.0b14343f@jbarnes-piketon> <20100304103929.6eb81d45@jbarnes-piketon> <20100304105624.70fe845e@jbarnes-piketon> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.18.3; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.28.251 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:08:07 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds wrote: > The thing is, they clearly didn't even _try_ to make anything compatible. > See how all the ioctl numbers were moved around. > > And if you can't make if backwards compatible, at least you should make it > forwards-compatible. Is it even that? I don't know. I'm kind of afraid it > isn't. The new libdrm required for it certainly hasn't been pushed to > Fedora-12. Will it ever be? And if it is, can you still run an old kernel > on it? Sure, but both kinds of compat come at a cost, a potentially large one in this case, so why take it on before absolutely necessary? I know you can see both sides of this... > And btw, I'd complain about breaking backwards compatibility even if it > wasn't just my own machine. I can pretty much guarantee that I'm not going > to be the only one hitting this issue. Right, but OTOH it's a development driver. If you're running Fedora, things will work as long as you stick to the distro packages. And if you're building your own kernels, you ought to be taking care with staging drivers, right? > So practically speaking: what _do_ you suggest we do about all the > regressions this will cause? Before this thread I thought the policy was "let people muddle through" with staging drivers until their staging status is cleared. If that's not the case, then really what's the point of staging? I'm sure there are other examples of this type of breakage in staging drivers, though admittedly nouveau is probably the biggest in terms of user interest. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center