Re: [git pull] drm request 3

From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri Mar 05 2010 - 11:29:01 EST

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
> > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> > code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> > absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
> > that worked really well for Xlib.
> read() still works the same way it did 30 years ago last time I
> checked.

Thats disingenous as read() is a method not an interface. It's also wrong
because read() and write() behaviour has changed in various ways and old
code broke because of it in subtle ways. Keeping the same method behaviour
would have required things like new versions of read() for 64bit files,
nonblocking, mandlocks, NFS, networking, etc all of which changed the
core read() behaviour. I've yet to see anyone meaningfully argue it was
the wrong thing to do.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at