From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264270AbTLBSpW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:45:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264278AbTLBSpW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:45:22 -0500 Received: from dvmwest.gt.owl.de ([62.52.24.140]:46726 "EHLO dvmwest.gt.owl.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264270AbTLBSpP (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:45:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:45:13 +0100 From: Jan-Benedict Glaw To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 future Message-ID: <20031202184513.GU16507@lug-owl.de> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031201153316.B3879@infradead.org> <200312020223.55505.snpe@snpe.co.yu> <20031202063912.GD16507@lug-owl.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bW7Nw90iaNQhVLQB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux mail 2.4.18 X-gpg-fingerprint: 250D 3BCF 7127 0D8C A444 A961 1DBD 5E75 8399 E1BB X-gpg-key: wwwkeys.de.pgp.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --bW7Nw90iaNQhVLQB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-12-02 10:04:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote in message : > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 02:23:55 +0000, snpe > > wrote in message <200312020223.55505.snpe@snpe.co.yu>: > > > Is there linux-abi for 2.6 kernel ? > > > > Nobody really cares about ABI (at least, not enough to keep one stable) > > while there's a good API. That requires sources, though, but that's a > > good thing... > You are, however, correct when it comes to internal kernel interfaces: we > care not at all about ABI's, and even API's are fluid and are freely > changed if there is a real technical reason for it. But that is only true > for the internal kernel stuff (where source is obviously a requirement > anyway). Whenever The ABI Question (TM) comes up, it seems to be about claiming a (binary compatible) interface - mostly for modules. But I think it's widely accepted that there isn't much work done to have these truly (sp?) binary compatible (eg. UP/SMP spinlocks et al.). Of course, we want to have a somewhat stable interface for libc (-> userspace), but some struct (fb_info, ...) doesn't need to be binary compatible - as long as a driver (given to be in source) still works cleanly with it:) MfG, JBG --=20 Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier B=FCrger" | im Internet! | im Ira= k! ret =3D do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TC= PA)); --bW7Nw90iaNQhVLQB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/zN25Hb1edYOZ4bsRAkKPAJ9YDk4zoHRdvmVlKezX/Suwib8yyACfcbdc BLsVJvWrUey6pucErzWZVQg= =5/nZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bW7Nw90iaNQhVLQB--