On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 16:55, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 05 2023, David Turner <di...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:06 PM Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 05 2023, "David 'Digit' Turner" <di...@google.com> wrote:
> >> > The script has then been run against the official
> >> > 6.2.8 kernel source tree (current stable release),
> >> > which explains why comments in <linux/vfio.h>
> >> > have been updated too.
> >>
> >> I think we usually run the script against a release or release
> >> candidate, not stable.
> >>
> >> I meant that this was run against the headers of the 6.2.8 official
> > release, which was listed as "stable" on https://kernel.org/ (that page now
> > lists the 6.2.9 release btw)
> > I'd be happy to re-run it against a different set if you can tell me which
> > one (and where to get it, just in case).
>
> I think most people actually run it against a checkout of Linus' git
> tree, preferrably either the latest -rc version (or the latest release
> during the kernel merge window) -- people usually run the script because
> they want to use some new interfaces that were recently introduced to
> the kernel. (This also ensures linear history, although I don't think
> that's too much of a problem.)
Yeah, I think the requirement is just "it has to be against some commit
that is on the mainline of the upstream kernel", it doesn't inherently
have to be an rc or a full point release. The assumption we're making
here is that ABI is stable once a change hits Linus' git tree, and
not stable before that.
The other requirement is "don't go backwards", ie don't sync to a
commit that pre-dates whatever the last commit we synced to is.
The last sync we did was to ceaa837f96ad ("Linux 6.2-rc8").
thanks
-- PMM
