From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 23:30:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AE837B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F267C43E4A; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:30:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with ESMTP id <2002112707300905300d27oce>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:30:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA57649; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:29:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:29:04 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? In-Reply-To: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> > Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > : In message , Robe > : rt Watson writes: > : > : >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: > : >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that > : >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should > : >be aware that they may have to rebuild their driver. We've already > : >indicated that the 5.0 release will be for "early adopters"--I want to > : >avoid having things stand in the way of kicking the 5.x branch into shape > : >in as much as is possible. Any thoughts? > : > : It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches > : (and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). > : > : Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze > : the ABI's for that branch. > > That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely > constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't > change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, > don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you > need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... > > Warner > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message