From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 24 13:22:31 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F853106566B for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:22:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me) Received: from feld.me (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCAA78FC08 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:22:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me; s=blargle; h=In-Reply-To:Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:Content-Type; bh=DNvq3OnYgxITAm7+2S/YKzoPa8QSO48KKkfrHBNWSyQ=; b=hm6dkJnH9q9EbzxhkhdKO8SGLDtxnHwLmdh6MXyDmZ/THiGpU8pVxRJXgvGZOfayFRyEDQSyOpmfM/CsG9L0bCif09XdJSPt2KOav+KXhGzOAUJlh/QFSGUyB7ASqWS0; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org) by feld.me with esmtp (Exim 4.80 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T4tq7-000Mc4-GH; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:22:20 -0500 Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpa id 1345814533-5418-5417/5/5; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:22:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: Konstantin Belousov References: <1345697446.84337.11.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <20120824051809.GP33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:21:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Felder Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20120824051809.GP33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.01 (FreeBSD) X-SA-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, KHOP_THREADED=-0.5 X-SA-Score: -1.5 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Walter Hurry Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 Available... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:22:31 -0000 On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:18:09 -0500, Konstantin Belousov 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 :-)