[2471] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Cox)
Wed Feb 3 22:44:57 1999
From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
To: tytso@MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:39:54 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, efoo@MIT.EDU, warlord@MIT.EDU, xiphmont@MIT.EDU,
linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-dev@MIT.EDU, jered@MIT.EDU,
nemo@MIT.EDU, linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu, cox@idecnet.com,
cdwrite@lists.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <199902040339.WAA17323@dcl> from "Theodore Y. Ts'o" at Feb 3, 99 10:39:16 pm
> Stepping back to the bigger picture, the point I hope is clear. We need
> to be much more careful during the 2.2 series to minimize interface
> changes as much as possible. This includes device driver authors, who
Yep. Right now 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 appear to be compatible. 2.2.2pre1 likewise.
2.2.1ac* isnt for stuff that directly hits current->file things (unusual)
but the other thing big file arrays needed that affects struct file is
already in linus tree (32 bit use counts - since you can open a file 100,000
times now)
> These sorts of things are important. Everyone in the Linux community
> --- glibc developers, kernel developer, Linux distribution maintainers,
> application developers --- needs to do their part; it's not just someone
> else's problem.
Yes. We also have to find the right boundary between never changing (the MSDOS
stagnation/windows liability and effective death over time, sun 18month bug
fix) and excessive changes.
I wouldnt deny any of that.
Alan
