From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Kexec regression in next-20160906
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 12:23:13 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8729269.3rIvqbaU1r@hactar> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160907080807.GD5783@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-08 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-06 22:09 Kexec regression in next-20160906 Tony Lindgren
2016-09-06 23:33 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-09-07 8:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-09-08 15:23 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8729269.3rIvqbaU1r@hactar \
--to=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox