Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH][5th RESENT] backport 2.5 inode allocation changes"
• Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doingfile transfers"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default"
• Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:07:54PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> With all the vendors now shipping 4.2 this seems a bad thing to default
> to the 4,1 interface - especially as the 4.1 server is
>
> o Buggy
> o Has security holes that are fixed in 4.2.1 only

I don't think that's the proper argument. 2.4.20 silently breaking
systems that worked fine with 2.4.19 is not the way new linux releases
work. Vendors can of course feel free to have the new ABI by default.

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

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH][5th RESENT] backport 2.5 inode allocation changes"
• Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doingfile transfers"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default"
• Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] fix drm ioctl ABI default"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:32 EST