From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755420AbXF0Jzg (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:55:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752470AbXF0Jz2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:55:28 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:34767 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751729AbXF0Jz2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:55:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:55:27 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Zolt?n HUBERT Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0 Message-ID: <20070627095526.GM21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <200706212349.54983.zoltan.hubert@zzaero.com> <200706261637.22820.zoltan.hubert@zzaero.com> <6FD45914-1793-45D5-B0A1-F5D32ED38017@e18.physik.tu-muenchen.de> <200706271118.36985.zoltan.hubert@zzaero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706271118.36985.zoltan.hubert@zzaero.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote: > I'm a system engineer, and a "stable" system is one where > the interfaces are stable. Individual components can > change, and do change, but if you change fundamental > interfaces it is not the same system. Of course I > understand that "sometimes" fundamental things have to > change, but here "sometimes" is the keyword. If its > "anytime" it simply is no stable system. And yes, designing > and maintaining interfaces is a very difficult job. What makes you think that module interfaces _exist_? Over the years we'd got a pile of exports. Maybe 5-10% of it could form several more or less sane interfaces. And that's being very optimistic. But try to get those interfaces and guess who'll scream bloody murder? That's right, the 3rd-party module developers. The same people who presumably want stability. Because all that dreck had been exported on someone's requests. > I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I > find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide > 2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't > trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y Eh? Funny, but in the next xterm I've got an ssh session to RHEL-5 box. 2.6.18+many backported patches... FC is simply following mainline, but that's a separate story... > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable > kernel (from the same series), while development kernels > need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff > that you all so nicely add. "Drop-in" in which sense? That out-of-tree modules keep working? Not really...