gistfile1.txt

From	Linus Torvalds <>
Date	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:40:26 -0800
Subject	Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth
> doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility

Stop right there.

This is *not* about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility".

This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES.

So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken,
stop making excuses, and stop blathering.

End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than *any* of
your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making
excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely.

Seriously. Binary compatibility is *so* important that I do not want
to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand
that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show
yourself to be unreliable.  Don't do it.

Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't
understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top
priorities. The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the first
place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own.
Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly
bad that was - is just about the *worst* offense any kernel developer
can do.

Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point*
of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some
research project.  We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole
and only point was to make a *usable* system. It's why it's not some
crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing.

Really.

                     Linus