Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications
| From: | Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> | |
| To: | "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm-AT-xmission.com> | |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications | |
| Date: | Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:40:26 -0800 | |
| Message-ID: | <CA+55aFwSETK6bz5-q6HMKGqnweTPuR-MA6w-19-Fto13jDU4GA@mail.gmail.com> | |
| Cc: | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh-AT-linuxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby-AT-suse.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby-AT-gmail.com>, Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki-AT-gmail.com> | |
| Archive‑link: | Article |
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth
> doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility
Stop right there.
This is *not* about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility".
This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES.
So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken,
stop making excuses, and stop blathering.
End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than *any* of
your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making
excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely.
Seriously. Binary compatibility is *so* important that I do not want
to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand
that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show
yourself to be unreliable. Don't do it.
Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't
understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top
priorities. The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the first
place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own.
Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly
bad that was - is just about the *worst* offense any kernel developer
can do.
Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point*
of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some
research project. We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole
and only point was to make a *usable* system. It's why it's not some
crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing.
Really.
Linus