Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: revert exports to restore old behaviour

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This does not apply since we do not have a stable in-kernel API, and 
> > therefore changes to the in-kernel API can by definition not be 
> > regressions.
> >
> > 2.6.24 most likely contains hundreds of changes and removals of 
> > in-kernel APIs that existed in 2.6.23.
> >
> > Are you seriously suggesting that e.g. every single change to any struct 
> > under include/ [1] would require an announcement x kernel releases 
> > before it can be implemented?
> 
> Well, no, but that's not the point.
>...

Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but no change to the in-kernel API [1] 
could ever be called a regression since we do not have a stable 
in-kernel API.

And what annoyed was that this was one of at least 3 ongoing 
linux-kernel threads where people tried to bring the notion that any 
part of the in-kernel API had any kind of stability.

>     J

cu
Adrian

[1] and that includes what is visible to modules

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/