On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:41 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
wrote:

> 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").
>
> Thank you, that makes perfect sense, I have sent another series of patches
(with the headers updade as a separate patch for consistency)

thanks
> -- PMM
>

Reply via email to