On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:21:37PM +0100, David Edmondson wrote: > > Unfortunately I do not think this is practical :(. > > > > All examples of breakage I am aware of, we did not > > realise some part of interface was part of guest ABI > > and unsafe to change. We simply would not know to write a > > test for it. > > While agreeing that it would not be possible to cover all aspects of the > ABI immediately, does that mean that some level of coverage would not be > useful? Our testing already warns about ACPI table changes (which is what happened here). We just verified them manually and thought they are fine. -- MST
