On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > James Bottomley, on 08/22/2010 12:43 AM wrote: >> Interface re-use (or at least ABI compatibility) is the whole point, >> it's what makes the solution a drop in replacement. > > I see now. You want ABI compatibility to keep the "contract" that no > kernel changes can break applications binary compatibility for unlimited > time. ok now I'm confused, or maybe I'm not understanding ABI correctly, or maybe you guys are using it in a way that is inconsistent with popular convention. As a VMware user, I have experienced fully that the kernel ABI changes in various places with every release. VMwares drivers have to be constantly updated to match changes in kernel function parameters and even what functions are available. I've also experienced it with scsi cards, dsl modems, and other 3rd party drivers. It's the one big downside to developing for the Linux kernel, the ABI is /always/ changing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
