Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Cleanup TIF value gaps in shift range

H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-18T21:44:15Z

On 10/18/2010 02:36 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> The problem is that someone exports something as debugging information,
>> then someone else suddenly thinks it's an ABI. I believe the same
>> complainant in the past has objected to changing of formatting in dmesg,
>> which is equally insane.
>>
>
> It's not insane if there is no other way to ascertain that information.
> If it's available through sysfs or debugfs (and, even better, documented
> as part of the API in Documentation/ABI), then I don't think anyone would
> object to changing a log message. But I don't think all log messages
> should be fair game under some general principle if they are being changed
> (instead of just extending it) without a compelling reason, such as
> technically being incorrect in its present form.

YES IT IS. In fact, it is completely and totally bananas bonkers.

By not pushing for a proper maintainable ABI, you will have an
indefinite forward compatibility problem, and when predictably it
breaks, you'll complain. This is, however, backwards -- the right thing
would have been to say "I need this, this isn't available, I should add
a maintainable API and push it upstream", and perhaps add log parsing as
a backwards-compatibility solution.

-hpa