From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: Re: pci-skeleton duplex check Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:14:46 +0000 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021214161446.B23020@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <200212141428.TAA32351@WS0005.indiatimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Michael Richardson , netdev@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Return-path: To: arun4linux Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200212141428.TAA32351@WS0005.indiatimes.com>; from arun4linux@indiatimes.com on Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 08:05:30PM +0530 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 08:05:30PM +0530, arun4linux wrote: > Interfaces should NEVER change in patch level versions. > Just *DO NOT DO IT*. > I do agree on this. Rubbish. Think about what you've just said. Patch level version changes are things like 2.5.43 to 2.5.44 or 2.4.19 to 2.4.20. You are saying that we shouldn't change any interfaces between (eg) 2.5.43 and 2.5.44, but we should change every interface we want to change between 2.4.15 and 2.5.0. This is obviously completely bogus. 2.5 is a _development_ tree. Everyone should expect anything, including interfaces to change between each development patch level. > This is a common complaint about linux kernel developers. And this always > gives an insecure feeling :-) for the device driver or kernel module > programmers. If interfaces are changed without extremely good reason between two _stable_ patch level versions, that would be a bug. > This was one of the issues in my earlier company/work and they have > gone for another OS. Was the problem against a stable kernel version? Did you report the problem when you found it? Was there a response? Unless you have done at least the above, I, for one, have very little sympathy. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html