On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:46:04 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

quoted text
> > >> adequate job of warning our users.  A printk when we run a program
> > >> that uses the binary interface and an long enough interval the warning
> > >> makes it to the Enterprise kernels before we remove the interface
> > >> should be sufficient.
> 
> The enterprise products will probably just remove the printk. Even if
> they didn't you are looking at ten years before things finish changing
> based on current experiences, probably longer as things stabilize.

If that happens then the enterprise vendors will tell us (won't they).  We
can then discuss it and we may well elect to do something different.

But Eric is predicting that this probably _won't_ happen.  There's only one
way to find out.

quoted text
> The whole "whine a bit" process simply doesn't work when you are trying
> to persuade people to move in a non-hobbyist context.

Eric thinks there will be little if any moving to be done.

quoted text
> They don't want to
> move, the message is simply an annoyance, their upstream huge package
> vendor won't change just to deal with it and they'll class it as a
> regression from previous releases, an incompatibility and file bugs until
> it goes away.
> 
> Its user ABI and as Linus said - we don't break it. Trimming down all the
> crap that never worked via sysctl is one thing, not putting sysctl in new
> platforms likewise. Trying to undo it isn't going to work
> 

We don't know that yet.  You may be right, or maybe Eric is right.  Let's
find out.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/