Hi Linus,
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Hmm, I thought Documentation/ABI/ was supposed to tell us what's an
>> ABI you can depend on and what's not. I mean, you shouldn't be
>> depending on anything but the interfaces documented in
>> Documentation/ABI/stable/, no?
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Who is the f*cking MORON that thinks that "documentation" has any meaning
> what-so-ever?
Me, I suppose. At least that's the impression I got when being asked
to document any new kmemtrace debugfs files, for example.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The fact that something is documented (whether correctly or not) has
> absolutely _zero_ impact on anything at all. What makes something an ABI
> is that it's useful and available. The only way something isn't an ABI is
> by _explicitly_ making sure that it's not available even by mistake in a
> stable form for binary use.
OK, but why do we have those different ABI "stages" in
Documentation/ABI then? The README file there seems to contradict what
you say. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong...
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
