On 01.10.19 12:25:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:47:07AM +0000, Robert Richter wrote:
> > If you move to static inline for edac_device_handle_{ce,ue} the
> > symbols vanish and this breaks the abi. That's why the split in two
> > patches.
>
> ABI issues do not concern upstream. And that coming from me working at a
> company who dance a lot to make ABI happy.
>
> Also, I'm missing the reasoning why you use the ABI as an argument at
> all: do you know of a particular case where people are thinking of
> backporting this or this is all hypothetical.
>
> > Your comment to not have a __ version as a third variant of the
> > interface makes sense to me. But to keep ABI your patch still needs to
> > be split.
>
> Not really - normally, when you fix ABI issues with symbols
> disappearing, all of a sudden, you add dummy ones so that the ABI
> checker is happy.
Let's go with a single patch then and the function naming you
suggested before.
Thanks,
-Robert
