[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dcccdc4b-b7d7-47c4-b1b1-a6c70edb20fa@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:10:26 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>, "Pratik R. Sampat" <prsampat@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, osalvador@...e.de, thomas.lendacky@....com,
michael.roth@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug
On 12/1/25 20:10, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:32:38PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>> I think we are in agreement: from what I recall, this software contract used to be
>> rather simple and stable.
>
> Ok, please point me to the *explicit* document in our tree which says: "we
> won't break the kernel and support kexec with any kernel version"?
Just to be clear, I don't think it exist and also I don't think that it
should exist.
>
> Something ala Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
>
> Which says things like:
>
> "Assuming that we had a stable kernel source interface for the kernel,
> a binary interface would naturally happen too, right? Wrong."
>
> Which I read as a "no" to the kexec question too.
>
> IOW, it is not about whether it works or not - it is about enforcing that.
Agreed.
--
Cheers
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists