On 11/07/2011 04:53 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> I think so, but that's unrelated. The worry is that some DRM code >> checksums your hardware and complains if it changed too much. Nothing >> to do with the test suite. >> >> The sense of Gerd's comment is reversed. We should preserve the ABI >> unless there is a strong reason not to. > > > Yes, I understand where you're coming from and I agree except when it > comes to bug fixes. > > My view toward bug fixes is the opposite--unless we know that the bug > fix breaks something, we should fix the bug. If it's a bug, we have to > assume it's breaking something. You're right in that not every bug fix deserves an entry in our quirk table. We don't want -M pc-0.15 to reintroduce a data corrupting bug just because it is guest visible! This is more of an edge case however, since we know that hardware tools rely on PCI IDs. For example our hypothetical ABI signature tool will certainly include lspci like functionality and detect this as a change. I now agree with both sides of the argument and can continue the discussion unaided for at least 30-40 emails. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
