On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:52:49PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 13:27 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:20:53PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 14:41 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:57:55PM +0100, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Have struct mutex_lock take an optional wakeup function. > > > > > unlock() is renamed to __unlock() in order to prevent it from > > > > > being called by mistake. > > > > > > > > > > This changes offsets in "struct vectors", requiring a major > > > > > libmultipath version bump. While the strucure is already > > > > > changed, > > > > > in order to avoid this in the future, move the lock to the end > > > > > of "struct vectors". > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > In libmultipath.version, I would have said that set_wakeup_fn was > > > > added > > > > in 10.0.0, instead of 9.2.0, which is a version that never > > > > actually > > > > existed, but I don't think that's going to cause any problems so, > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > We should consider whether we want bump the version numbers only > > > when > > > we submit to Christophe, or maybe once per major patch series that > > > touches the ABI. This is something that I could > > > > I suppose that we could just bump the version the first time after a > > push to Christophe that an ABI change is made, and then just make all > > the symbol changes under that version until Christophe makes another > > release. If the first change only caused a minor version bump, and a > > later change needed a major bump we could have two version bumps in a > > release, but I don't think we're getting any benefit from making > > more. > > But once per patchset works fine for me too. > > I agree. Also, I realize that we've bumped the library version too > often in the past. If we add a function, we don't need to bump. Because > a program that needs the added function will require e.g. > foo@LIBMULTIPATH_10.0.0, and this will fail for a library that doesn't > export foo (which is what we want). Likewise for function deletion - a > program that calls the deleted function will fail to link with the > updated library. OTOH, programs that use this version of the ABI > *without* using the functions which are added or removed are unaffected > by the addition / removal. > > The only case in which the ABI version must be bumped is when we have > changed functions or data structures. > > Furthermore, I believe now that the habit (which I introduced) to list > added functions at the end of the .version files, with comments > indicating when they were added, is useless. We should rather keep the > .version file ordered alphabetically. So we not use the minor version anymore? -Ben > > Regards > Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
