Re: [git pull] drm request 3
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thu Mar 04 2010 - 14:08:21 EST
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> If marking the driver as staging doesn't allow them to break ABI when
> they need to, then it seems like they'll have no choice but to either
> remove the driver from upstream and only submit it when the ABI is
> stable, or fork the driver and submit a new one only when the ABI is
> stable. Neither seem particularly attractive.
The thing is, they clearly didn't even _try_ to make anything compatible.
See how all the ioctl numbers were moved around.
And if you can't make if backwards compatible, at least you should make it
forwards-compatible. Is it even that? I don't know. I'm kind of afraid it
isn't. The new libdrm required for it certainly hasn't been pushed to
Fedora-12. Will it ever be? And if it is, can you still run an old kernel
All of these are always possible to do. We've been _very_ good at doing
them in general. I'm complaining, because let's face it, what else can I
And btw, I'd complain about breaking backwards compatibility even if it
wasn't just my own machine. I can pretty much guarantee that I'm not going
to be the only one hitting this issue.
So practically speaking: what _do_ you suggest we do about all the
regressions this will cause?
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/