3 ms·
I 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_BR
by falcor84 7mo ago
I 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 6mo agoSlow pace is appropriate for a mature kernel that the entire world relies on.