Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:54:56 -0800
From:      Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org>
To:        Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r255219 - in head: contrib/tcpdump lib/libc lib/libc/capability lib/libc/include lib/libc/sys lib/libprocstat sbin/dhclient sbin/hastd sys/amd64/linux32 sys/bsm sys/cddl/compat/opensola...
Message-ID:  <99767738-1AEB-481F-8096-DC3D914F80B0@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140102212757.GA1672@garage.freebsd.pl>
References:  <201309050009.r8509vsE061271@svn.freebsd.org> <67DFFD7B-01DE-4862-BED3-DD42EB92A8F4@freebsd.org> <20140102093322.GA1655@garage.freebsd.pl> <52C53F69.3040507@mu.org> <20140102104904.GB1655@garage.freebsd.pl> <20140102131308.GI59496@kib.kiev.ua> <20140102212757.GA1672@garage.freebsd.pl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> I personally don't consider it so awful and critical as you do, =
clearly,
> but I do recognize it as a problem. I'm happy to consume spares, which
> should fix compatibility with older releases at the cost of breaking
> compatibility with 10-RCs.  At least for i386 and amd64, not sure how
> using ints for uint64_t will work for other arches.

Personally, I=92d prefer if we use spare fields for now.  That will =
allow
us to maintain ABI stability for the current release, and have enough =
time
to implement the new, incompatible, interface in addition to the old one
in HEAD.  The interface is used a lot by 3rd party applications to =
obtain
the information about open file descriptors (in place of the Linux=92 =
/proc
interface), and this change will leave 9.x and before binaries broken in
a subtle way on 10.x and beyond.  Most of the commercial applications =
are
shipped compiled against 9.x or even 8.x and 7.x, and although the =
extent
of the damage is unknown, it might turn out to be a problem.  To me, it
seems that breaking the ABI with 10.x RC is less dangerous.

--
ST4096-RIPE






Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99767738-1AEB-481F-8096-DC3D914F80B0>