On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Woodruff, Robert J wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >We are well past the point of doing experimental breaking stuff in the core > >uapi libraries. If it is in the master git it should be shippable by a > >distro, and it is so easy >to slap a version number on the HEAD if a > >distro/ofed/etc wants one. > > This may be true, but since it is the master, there could be all > kinds of new stuff in it and not just the simple bug fix a H/W > vendor might want to put into his/her user-space H/W specific > library. Consider the situation when some H/W vendor just wants to > provide a simple fix to their library. In the current model, they > simply fix it and release a new H/W specific library that a customer > or distro can pick up and ship.
It makes very little difference, once a distro has gone stable they will review and inspect all patches - checking a new tar release for a sub component or backporting a git patch for the same subcomponent are very similar end results. I would guess all-together is actually less work for the distro side because the whole candidate patch stream for backporting is right there, easy to see, not sprinkled across all manner of git trees. And again, if the master is unusable, then we have not done our job right. The master is *NOT* for stuff that doesn't work. > just a bug fix. Further, that new stuff might even require new > kernel code, so it could not just be replaced as a new user-space > package by a distro w/o updating the kernel. We are not going to make a change like that, that violates the spirit of how the uabi side is supposed to work. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
