From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: Re: why is linux-libre-headers behind linux-libre?
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:22:50 -0500
Message-ID: <87inengqk5.fsf@netris.org>
References: <87bmkn7awd.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
	<CAEwRq=pSyzf7_Q_zzJJWjQB+HwyBwrA67Xdc+mhz8vg8q_9yoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20171031193852.GB987@macbook41>
	<87fu9x2df8.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <878tfksp03.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87po8vhk3q.fsf@netris.org> <20171106085134.GA24651@thebird.nl>
	<87mv3zwi4m.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58182)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1eBmzc-0006QO-V0
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:23:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1eBmzZ-0001Sq-Kh
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:23:32 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87mv3zwi4m.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message
	of "Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:18:17 +0000")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> writes:

> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes:
>
>> The Linux kernel API is remarkably stable.
>
> Actually, I don't think that's the case, speaking as someone who's had
> to deal with out-of-tree drivers for various reasons.  For instance, the
> OrangeFS module typically broke when I tried to rebuild the package on a
> new version of Fedora.  Even RHEL can break such things with minor
> releases.

When Pjotr said that the Linux API is remarkably stable, I assume he was
talking about the syscall API, i.e. the API available to programs run in
user space.  The Linux kernel project has a strict policy to avoid
changing its API in a way that would break user programs.

The internal API available to kernel modules and drivers is another
matter entirely.  The Linux kernel project reserves the right to change
that internal API freely, and does so regularly.

      Mark