Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules

[Jon Masters]

On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 20:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary 
> > modules. So I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people 
> > react. [...]
> 
> ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong 
> NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing 
> markers into unfixable modules, tomorrow it's marker use by such 
> modules) has only one clear and predictable effect: it turns marker 
> calls into essential ABIs because when faced with any breakage in an 
> unfixable module that makes use of a marker in some kernel subsystem 
> then all the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the 
> kernel subsystem maintainers that use markers.

Mathieu's previous comment was that this was to help improve the quality
of such drivers. Out of interest, why do you dislike markers so much?

Jon.


--
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/