[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#607368: Kernel ABI management



On Sat, 2010-12-18 at 18:23 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> >> This is reinforced by reading the packaging scripts and realizing they
> >> check the whole ABI, prior to -28.
> >
> > This is not correct.  We have ignored many changes since 2.6.32-12 when
> > the ABI number was bumped to 5.  In 2.6.32-27 the symbol version files
> > were refreshed and the ignore list was reset.
> 
> This is even more troubling.
> 
> > The upstream policy is that symbol exports may be removed when there are
> > no in-tree users.  So that export could even be made conditional on
> > CONFIG_KVM_MODULE (or whatever it's called).
> 
> Upstream policy doesn't break your setup from one kernel package
> revision to the other.

Actually it does.  The ABI change was part of a stable update.

> > Maybe I should find a way to limit that export so OOT users won't make
> > this mistake.
> 
> Good luck with that, it's been tried already with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> and people still do work around that.

That is probably copyright infringement.

> >> See the top of this mail where you state that no list of symbols covered
> >> by the ABI was ever published for Debian kernels. It isn't unreasonable
> >> under these circumstances to assume that all symbols are covered.
> >
> > It is extremely stupid.
> 
> We obviously disagree.
> 
> >> VMware, nVidia, various drivers and infrastructure for communications
> >> hardware (been there, done that), ...
> >
> > VMware - use KVM.
> 
> Not possible. We require 3D pass-through that KVM doesn't offer. Windows
> virtio drivers failed us on Vista/Seven (can't remember, not my
> area), plain old IDE emulation is too slow to be usable. Also, issues
> with moving a VM from one host to another from a Windows licensing
> standpoint (still researching this one, though).

It sounds like you should really be using ESX/vSphere on the host,
rather than VMware Server on Debian.  I mean, VMware Server is basically
demo-ware.

> > nvidia - use nouveau, report a bug if it doesn't work.
> 
> Doesn't work with our cards, not by a long shot. Probably won't work for
> another decade or so, so not an option. We do need working and fast 3D.
> 
> Switching to AMD - oh yeah, we tried that. I have a drawer full of test
> cards. Not a single one has working 3D with free drivers, and here again
> it won't happen for another year or two *best case*. Not an option.
> 
> Once again: not that we wouldn't like to use free drivers, but we just
> can't. And I'm the one backporting and testing the nVidia drivers, so
> believe me when I tell you I'd be using Nouveau if it was an option.

Where are your bug reports on nouveau?

> We are limited by our user's requirements on the one hand and by what
> hardware vendors can sell us on the other hand - and they can't sell us
> yesteryear's tech forever, especially on high-end mobile workstations.
> 
> Anybody doing this type of large-scale deployment faces the same issues.
> 
> > random drivers - send them to the maintainer of crap (Greg K-H, for the
> > staging tree).
> 
> :-) That being said, not every out of tree driver comes with
> source. Although pure crap has made it to staging in the past, I'm
> pretty sure multi-megabyte binary blobs don't stand a chance.

Binary-only drivers for Linux are generally copyright infringements.  If
we break them: good.  (I know nvidia provides a Linux-specific stub as
source and it might be an exception to this.)

> I'm pretty disappointed by the way you're handling this; it feels like
> you have little care for what your users actually need.

We do, just not all of what *you* (one of our users) want.

Ben.

> I find it a bit
> sad, given all the very good work you've been doing with the kernel
> otherwise.
> 
> As I wrote already, it's not like VMware is some obscure piece of
> software that nobody knows about.



-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: