public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox