|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Kay Sievers <kay.sievers-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions|
|| ||Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:44:16 -0800 (PST)|
|| ||Pekka J Enberg <penberg-AT-cs.Helsinki.FI>, Greg KH <gregkh-AT-suse.de>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk-AT-stusta.de>, Robert Love <rml-AT-novell.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul-AT-us.ibm.com>|
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Well, that's part of the contract by using an experimental version of HAL,
> it has nothing to do with the kernel
NO NO NO!
Dammit, if this is the logic and mode of operation of HAL people, then we
must stop accepting patches to the kernel from HAL people.
THIS IS NOT DEBATABLE.
If you cannot maintain a stable kernel interface, then you damn well
should not send your patches in for inclusion in the standard kernel. Keep
your own "HAL-unstable" kernel and ask people to test it there.
It really is that easy. Once a system call or other kernel interface goes
into the standard kernel, it stays that way. It doesn't get switched
around to break user space.
Bugs happen, and sometimes we break user space by mistake. Sometimes it
really really is inevitable. But we NEVER EVER say what you say: "it's
your own fault". It's _our_ fault, and it's _our_ problem to work out.
Guys: you now have two choices: fix it by sending me a patch and an
explanation of what went wrong, or see the patch that broke things be
reverted. And STOP THIS DAMN APOLOGIA.
I'm fed up with hearing how "breaking user space is ok because it's HAL or
hotplug". IT IS NOT OK. Get your damn act together, and stop blaming other
If the interfaces were bad, we keep them around. Look in fs/stat.c some
day. Realize that some of those interfaces are from 1991. They were bad,
but that doesn't change _anything_. People used them, and we had
to post comments)