On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 00:02 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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... If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain. – Swedish army manual. If code uses a public interface and we break that interface, we will get unhappy users. Putting stuff in debugfs/ in a released kernel makes it public. That's the terrain. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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
