On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: > > Ryota Ozaki writes: >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Masao Uebayashi <uebay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Maybe adding a few spare members, like 5 pointers, to reduce # of bumps >> > ... ? >> >> I thought the version bump is required because a member has been changed >> (a struct to a pointer). So IIUC the spare members don't help for such >> a situation? > > this is correct. you need a kernel bump when ever the kernel > ABI changes. > > hiding stuff inside an alloc doesn't really help much when the > kernel code needs to access the structure anyway, unless you > also hide all accesses to the structure inside functions.
Thanks! I understood. ozaki-r > > that said, it's probably a good idea anyway. > > > .mrg.
