Hi,
> So, would we accept an applications-layer API that changed roughly every two > months? I would argue, no, we wouldn't. But > people developing in kernel land seem to accept it as some kind of > necessary gospel. For the kernel, the "application layer API" is the user space interface and that's _very_ stable. The module API is more akin to something internal. AFAIK The general design and philosophy is that the goal of every kernel module should be to get merged upstream. Long term maintenance of an out-of-tree driver is _not_ a supported / recommended use case, so they just don't care about it. It might work, but if you go that way, you have to deal with it. > I reject that notion. Feel free to fork the kernel and do all the same enhancement and new stuff that comes with each kernel version with no changes whatsoever to the internal APIs and without any additional work. Maintaining stuff stable is kind of the model they had with the 2.0/2.2/2.4 series, where the large changes were only in the inter-series. But for 2.6 (and 3.0 which is really just 2.6 continuation, nothing major changed between 2.6.39 and 3.0, Linus just felt '40' was too high), they changed the development model to be more fluid and allow faster evolution and AFAIH, most people are pleased with the results, both kernel dev that can get their stuff merged faster and more predictably and the users that get new stuff earlier. > Just because kernel-land is where "all the kewl kids play" is not a good > reason to break things on a regular basis. They don't break it for the pleasure of breaking it. They break it when it technically makes sense to do so. Cheers, Sylvain _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
