Re: Linux 2.4 future

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

On Tue, 2003-12-02 10:04:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312020956120.1519@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 02:23:55 +0000, snpe <snpe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote in message <200312020223.55505.snpe@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > Is there linux-abi for 2.6 kernel ?
> >
> > Nobody really cares about ABI (at least, not enough to keep one stable)
> > while there's a good API. That requires sources, though, but that's a
> > good thing...

> You are, however, correct when it comes to internal kernel interfaces: we
> care not at all about ABI's, and even API's are fluid and are freely
> changed if there is a real technical reason for it. But that is only true
> for the internal kernel stuff (where source is obviously a requirement
> anyway).

Whenever The ABI Question (TM) comes up, it seems to be about claiming a
(binary compatible) interface - mostly for modules. But I think it's
widely accepted that there isn't much work done to have these truly (sp?)
binary compatible (eg. UP/SMP spinlocks et al.).

Of course, we want to have a somewhat stable interface for libc (->
userspace), but some struct (fb_info, ...) doesn't need to be binary
compatible - as long as a driver (given to be in source) still works
cleanly with it:)

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature