Re: [git pull] drm request 3

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> Yeah perhaps Fedora should have pushed an update that was smart enough to
> handle the Nouveau old/new ABI before the patch went upstream. Hindsight
> is an exact science.

Alan - it seems you're missing the whole point.

The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact 
that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to 
support the old/new ABI at all! Let me quote that second email:

 "That commit seems to _on_purpose_ try to avoid at all cost being 
  compatible. It not only removes some old entry-points, it literally 
  re-numbers all the ioctl numbers as it does so, apparently entirely in 
  order to just make it difficult to have some libdrm that can handle both 
  versions."

So it's not a "before the patch went upstream" issue. The same issue 
exists _after_ the patch went upstream.

The way this was done, it's apparently basically impossible for the Fedora 
people to push out packaged that support both the old and the new kernel.

Alan, if this had been done in a way that allowed that whole old/new ABI 
that you mention to work, I wouldn't have been complaining so much!

In other words - I've not been complaining about updating the ABI. I've 
been complaining about doing it in such a way that it's near impossible to 
go back-and-forth, because the very thing you suggest was made way way 
harder than it should be.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/