From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:36:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20060614103605.GA17831@thunk.org> References: <1150156562.19929.32.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> <200606131859.43695.chase.venters@clientec.com> <20060613183112.B8460@openss7.org> <200606131953.42002.chase.venters@clientec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bidulock@openss7.org, Daniel Phillips , Stephen Hemminger , Sridhar Samudrala , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:48261 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbWFNKgk (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:36:40 -0400 To: Chase Venters Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200606131953.42002.chase.venters@clientec.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 07:53:19PM -0500, Chase Venters wrote: > > It is the lack of an ABI that is most frustrating to these users. > > And the presence of an ABI would be _very_ frustrating to core > developers. Not only would these people suffer, everyone would -- > developer time would be wasted dealing with cruft, and forward > progress would be slowed. Note that just because an interface is EXPORT_SYMBOL doesn't mean that the interface is guaranteed to be stable. So folks who are aruging that an interface shouldn't be usable by non-GPL applications because we are therefore guaranteeing a stable API are making an unwarranted assumption. - Ted