4 ms·
> Maybe we should, but requiring the use of a new low level facility that was introduced in the 7.0 kernel, to address a regression that exists only in 7.0+, se
by anal_reactor 7mo ago
> Maybe we should, but requiring the use of a new low level facility that was introduced in the 7.0 kernel, to address a regression that exists only in 7.0+, seems not great.
Completely right. This sounds like a communication failure. Maybe Linux maintainers should pick a few applications that have "priority support" and problems with these applications are also problems with Linux itself. Breaking Postgres is a serious regression.
Reminds me of a situation where Fedora couldn't be updated if you had Wine installed and one side of the argument was "user applications are user problem" while the other was "it's Wine, like come on".
- falcor84 7mo agoI for one liked the old and simple WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE attitude. https://linuxreviews.org/WE_DO_NOT_BREAK_USERSPACE https://linuxreviews.org/WE_DO_NOT_BREAK_USERSPACE
- reisse 7mo agoNot sure it is true anymore. I've encountered few userspace breaks in io_uring, at least.
- gcr 7mo agoPerformance regressions are different from ABI incompatibilities. If the kernel refused to do any work that slowed down any userspace program, the pace would go a lot slower.
- shadowgovt 7mo agoOr be a lot uglier. See: Microsoft replacing its own API surfaces with binary-compatible representations to workaround companies like Adobe adding perf improvements like bypassing the kernel-provided kernel object constructors because it saved them a few cycles to just hard-code the objects they wanted and memcpy them into existence.
- cogman10 7mo agoMicrosoft's whole "Let's just ship all the dlls" attitude is a big part of the reason a windows install is like 300GB now. Eventually you'd expect that something has to give.
- account42 7mo agoSlow pace is appropriate for a mature kernel that the entire world relies on.