Hi
Done. All changes have been reverted.
Best regards
Jacek Pielaszkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
Email: [email protected]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chanho Park [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 5:59 AM
> To: 'Patrick Ohly'; Lukasz Stelmach; Jacek Pielaszkiewicz
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Dev] External kernel module building and kernel ABI/API
> check.
>
> Hi Lukasz and Jacek,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:dev-
> [email protected]]
> > On Behalf Of Patrick Ohly
> > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 4:53 AM
> > To: Łukasz Stelmach
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Dev] External kernel module building and kernel ABI/API
> > check.
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 17:36 +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> > > It was <2013-12-20 pią 16:39>, when Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 16:23 +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> > > > Kernel stable API and ABI are syscalls, ioctl's, sysfs and proc
> > stuff,
> > > > known netlink interfaces, etc. Those people try hard to not
> break,
> > and
> > > > Linus bashes those who break them badly.
> > > >
> > > > Modules use internal kernel functions. API and _semantics_ of
> > > > those change all the time.
> > >
> > > And we want be able to at least spot the change.
> >
> > But you are not going to be sure that you do. At the moment, all that
> > you can tell third-party developer is: "the fingerprint has changed,
> > better recompile your module. It might still work, too (because it
> > doesn't use any of the modified functions)."
> >
> > You cannot guarantee that a module continues to work when the
> > fingerprint is unchanged.
> >
> > Bottom line is, the third-party developer has to recompile to be on
> > the safe side after any kernel update, regardless what the
> fingerprint says.
>
> I agree Patrick and Artem's opinions.
> I don't understand why we need this toot.
> Anyway, I requested to revert your patch series in the linux-3.10
> mobile tree.
>
> https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/14280/
> https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/14281/
> https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/14282/
>
> The kernel is always changed if we pulled sources from linus tree or to
> apply stable patches. In the case, we have to update the horrible ABI
> changes.
> Worse still, we should write more patches to update the ABI change.
> This thing makes it difficult to develop and to apply latest kernel
> patches.
> Why do we need this tool? If the third-party developer wants to know
> the ABI changes, it is sufficient for looking the latest sources :) Why
> do you open the hell gate only few advantages?
>
> Best Regards,
> Chanho Park
>
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
> >
> > The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
> I
> > am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
> > represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
> > on behalf of Intel on this matter.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
