Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions

[Andrew Morton]

Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > We broke back-compatibility.  The changelog _failed to tell us_ that we
> > were breaking back-compatibility.  The patch wouldn't have been applied if
> > we'd been told that.  At least, not without a lot of careful thought.
> > 
> > The fact that the changelog failed to tell us this makes one suspect that
> > the breakage was inadvertent.
> > 
> > 
> > So no, upgrading HAL is not a good answer.  Please fix the kernel.
> 
> [ bunch of special-pleading ]
>

None of that matters or is relevant.

You took a kernel interface which was present in 2.6.10, 2.6.11, 2.6.12,
2.6.13, 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 and changed it in a non-compatible way, without
telling us that it was non-compatible and without even notifying people
that we'd gone and broken existing userspace.

We.  Don't.  Do. That.

Please either restore the old events so we can have a 6-12 month transition
period or revert the patch.

-
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/