On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > I remain opposed to this half thought out trash of an ABI for the >> > meta-data. >> >> You don't have to enable the metadata if you don't want to use it, it's >> an option :) > > OK, _that_ argument needs to be stomped out. It had been used before, > and it was a deliberate scam. There is no such thing as optional kernel > interface, especially when udev/dbus/systemd crowd is nearby. We'd been > through that excuse before; remember how devtmpfs was pushed in as "optional"? > > This is a huge red flag. On the level of "I need your account information > to transfer $200M you might have inherited from my deceased client". > > Just to recap how it went the last time around: Kay kept pushing his piece of > code into the tree, claiming that it was optional, that nobody who doesn't > like it has to enable it, so what's the problem? OK, in it went. And pretty > soon udev (maintained by the same... meticulously honorable person) had > stopped working on the kernels that didn't have that enabled. > > We had been there before. To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable > person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into > the > kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with > adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack.
It appears that, if kdbus is merged, upstream udev may end up requiring it: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html Grumble. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
