On 02/01/2017 20:39, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> >>> I would like to minimize what we include in the uapi header; especially when MSFT has made no guarantees >>> with regards how they may be evolved. I will also work on getting some clarity on both stability and >>> under what license we would expose the uapi header. >> Am I correct assuming that QEMU is currently the only user of >> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h? >> >> Then I think we're fine withdrawing it from uapi as a whole and letting >> QEMU pull it in through its header-harvesting scripts (as does now >> anyway). This would lift all licensing and longterm API stability >> expectations. > > Thanks, that prevents lots of problems. > That is how I handle iproute2 as well. Except it wouldn't work. But no big deal, I guess we'll just synchronize hyperv.h manually. :(( Paolo _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
