drm request 3
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [GIT PULL] SLAB updates for 2.6.34-rc1
Next: [PATCH 1/1] perf: add support for arch-dependent symbolic event names to "perf stat"
From: Sergio Monteiro Basto on 6 Mar 2010 10:40 Hi, On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 10:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > it difficult to have some libdrm that can handle both > versions. You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm or at least recompile libdrm. So when you saw a error message "driver nouveau 0.0.n+1 and have 0.0.n" is completely right. Is not a perfect world, but as talked on xorg mailing list, some time ago, we do not have resources to test it in all versions. Is better focus on just one combination. Best regards, -- Sérgio M. B.
From: Valdis.Kletnieks on 6 Mar 2010 12:30 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200, Daniel Stone said: > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of > code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI > absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool, > that worked really well for Xlib. Amen to that. I can remember the X10.4->X11 conversion in 1987. And a heck of a lot of source-level stability since then (even with the libX11 getting redone with libxcb under it. 23 years and still going strong is one hell of a good run for an ABI.
From: Linus Torvalds on 6 Mar 2010 12:50 On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > > You shouldn't expect, by now, upgrade drm kernel without update libdrm > or at least recompile libdrm. Why? Why shouldn't I expect that? I already outlined exactly _how_ it could be done. Why are people saying that technology has to suck? > So when you saw a error message "driver nouveau 0.0.n+1 and have 0.0.n" > is completely right. No. It's _not_ right. The code knows what is wrong. Considering it a fatal error is _stupid_ and bad technology, when it could have just fixed it. > Is not a perfect world, but as talked on xorg mailing list, some time > ago, we do not have resources to test it in all versions. > Is better focus on just one combination. This is not about "testing all versions". It's fine to have just one combination. But why the hell doesn't it _load_ that one combination instead of just dying? IOW, there is a check for a version. It could - instead of dying - just dlopen() the right version instead. Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Sergio Monteiro Basto on 6 Mar 2010 14:10 On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology? Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster , unless you want wait 2 years until get "stable" . -- Sérgio M. B.
From: Linus Torvalds on 6 Mar 2010 14:40
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 09:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Why are people making excuses for bad programming and bad technology? > > Is not bad technology is new technology, the API have to change faster , > unless you want wait 2 years until get "stable" . F*ck me, but people are being dense. With my suggestion, people could change the API _more_, because it wouldn't be as painful. This is not about "change the ABI or not". This is about "since you change the ABI, do it _well_, so that it doesn't hurt people as much". Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |