Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:36:58 +0100 | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug | | From | "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <> |
| |
On 12/1/25 21:25, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:10:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote: >> Just to be clear, I don't think it exist and also I don't think that it >> should exist. > > By that logic if it doesn't exist and someone sends a patch, I should simply > ignore a review comment about that patch breaking some non-existent ABI and > simply take it.
Well, we can always discuss and see if there is a way to not break a specific use case, independent of any ABI stability guarantees.
> > Well, it certainly works for me. > > Unless you folks come-a-runnin' later screaming it broke some use case of > yours.
Heh, not me, but likely some of the CoCo folks regarding this specific use case (kexec in a confidential VM).
> And then we're back to what I've been preaching on this thread from the > very beginning: having a common agreement on what ABI Linux enforces.
Right. Maybe Kiryl knows more about this specific case as he brought up that these structures are versioned.
-- Cheers
David
|  |