Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:21:57 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Walter Hurry <walterhurry@gmail.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 Available... Message-ID: <op.wjjrevvd34t2sn@tech304> In-Reply-To: <20120824051809.GP33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <1345697446.84337.11.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <k15po0$kj3$1@ger.gmane.org> <op.wjimnzxz34t2sn@me-pc> <20120824051809.GP33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:18:09 -0500, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a statement that is false at least two times, if not three. > This was a question about Kernel Binary Inteface, not Application > Binary Interface. I actually did mean to say KBI instead of ABI :-/ > First, we have zero guarantees about ability to load or have a system > survive loading of the module compiled against the later kernel. > Second, we do not have real KBI definition, and KBI stability is managed > only ad-hock. E.g. VFS quite often breaks, while network or disk > controllers > drivers are usually fine. I'll have to search my email but I had a conversation with someone whom I trusted (I believe within the FBSD project) that either mislead me or I misread what they were saying. Either way, thank you for the clarification. > YMMV. Snobby false statements hurt the project. There was nothing snobby about it; I was merely using Linux as a point of reference since most *nix users should have experience with Linux rejecting kernel modules that weren't compiled against that exact kernel. I could very well have said Plan9 instead but it would be meaningless because nobody actually runs Plan9. :-) Thanks again Konstantin :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wjjrevvd34t2sn>