[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8729269.3rIvqbaU1r@hactar>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 12:23:13 -0300
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Kexec regression in next-20160906
Am Mittwoch, 07 September 2016, 09:08:07 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
> Any change to a UAPI header needs to be carefully considered and
> questioned as it is always a potential userspace breakage - and in
> the kernel, we're supposed to be doing our up-most to avoid
> breaking userspace.
>
> It's not like it was in the old days when we didn't have the UAPI
> seperate - today, we can find these things by looking at the patch
> diffstat and seeing whether any file in "uapi" is touched. That
> should be the trigger for a really in-depth review of the change.
No UAPI header is touched by this patch series. That is because there are
two definitions of struct kexec_segment, one in include/linux/kexec.h and
the other one in include/uapi/linux/kexec.h. My patch changed the former.
I was unaware of the second definition in the latter.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists