Re: Policy for reverting user ABI breaking patches was Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On 06 Dec 2005 15:50:55 -0700, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> And if there is breakage of such kernel-near applications there should
> be an *extremly* good reason for this (and minor cleanup isn't such a
> reason). For example for the recent udev breakage imho the cleanup
> patch that caused this should have just been reverted.

It was not a cleanup patch, without it you could not get input events
through netlink.

I wonder, since udev is fairly closely tied to the kernel, meybe it
woudl be beneficial just to fold it in. This way we could keep
compatibility with older kernels and rapidly roll out never stuff.

--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/