Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:10 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021127204510.GA794@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote: > > of this e-mail is the in-kernel ABI for modules. My concern is primarily > related to how to handle a potential ABI change in the mbuf structure, but > more broadly, whether we should be providing guarantees about the ABI > before 5.1. Yes. We should provide as much guarantees as we think is reasonable given the expectation that the ABI may change. Consequently, we should minimize the wishy-washy stance as much as we deem reasonable under wishy-washy conditions. I divert from previously expressed and reasonable opinions that I do want to pin down something (ie whatever we don't expect to change, if such exists) rather than not pinning down anything because something may change. The advantage of selective pinning is that it promotes stability. If anything that should be our highest priority. In colours: It's not a black and white situation and I think we should pass to grey before going all black. My $0.02 -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021127204510.GA794>