Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:36:32 +0900 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32 | From | FUJITA Tomonori <> |
| |
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:20:34 +0200 Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de> wrote:
> On 2009-09-22T07:27:21, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > > > If it happens, once that happens, that _will_ be an ABI break. > > > > You misunderstand the raid unification. > > > > We will not unify the kernel<->userspace configuration interface > > because we can't break the kernel<->userspace ABI. > > I disagree here. Who says we can't over time, and with due notice? > > For sure, the new ABI needs to co-exist with the old ones for a while, > until it is proven and fully complete, but then, why can't the old one > be marked as depreciated and phased out over 1-2 years time?
Let me know If you find a Linux storage developer who say, "Yeah, we can remove the md ABI over 1-2 years time after the raid unification".
Seems that you have a very different idea from other kernel developers about the stable ABI.
> > We plan to unify the multiple device frameworks, but the unified > > framework must support the all existing ABIs. > > > > So adding another 'drbd' ABI hurts us. > > Even that doesn't really apply, I think. If the new framework is > powerful enough and a super-set of everything that came before, the shim > layer will be somewhat annoying, but harmless code.
Improving the existing framework is a proper approach.
| |