Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:18:22AM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Oh, you know, I don't think that's exactly how it works; HAL is pretty
> much at the mercy of what changes goes into the kernel. And, trust me,
> the changes we need to cope with from your so-called stable API are not
> so nice. 
> 
> But I realize these changes are important because it's progress and back
> in 2.6.0 things were horribly broken for at least desktop workloads [1].
> It also makes me release note that newer HAL releases require newer
> kernel and udev releases and that's alright. In fact it's perfectly
> fine. We get users to upgrade to the latest and greatest and we keep
> making good progress. That's open source at it's finest I think.

No, it is not.  Just try to find a point where breakage had been introduced
into e.g. a driver, when known-good and known-bad versions are on the
different sides of your change requiring userland "upgrade".
-
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/