FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 Available...
feld at feld.me
Fri Aug 24 13:22:31 UTC 2012
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:18:09 -0500, Konstantin Belousov
<kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a statement that is false at least two times, if not three.
> This was a question about Kernel Binary Inteface, not Application
> Binary Interface.
I actually did mean to say KBI instead of ABI :-/
> First, we have zero guarantees about ability to load or have a system
> survive loading of the module compiled against the later kernel.
> Second, we do not have real KBI definition, and KBI stability is managed
> only ad-hock. E.g. VFS quite often breaks, while network or disk
> drivers are usually fine.
I'll have to search my email but I had a conversation with someone whom I
trusted (I believe within the FBSD project) that either mislead me or I
misread what they were saying. Either way, thank you for the clarification.
> YMMV. Snobby false statements hurt the project.
There was nothing snobby about it; I was merely using Linux as a point of
reference since most *nix users should have experience with Linux
rejecting kernel modules that weren't compiled against that exact kernel.
I could very well have said Plan9 instead but it would be meaningless
because nobody actually runs Plan9. :-)
Thanks again Konstantin :-)
More information about the freebsd-stable