On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:13 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:29:30 +0900 > Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Well, the intended usage of no-export-headers is to > > cater to the UAPI supported by only some architectures. > > We have kvm(_para).h here because not all architectures > > support kvm. > > > > If you do not want to export the UAPI, > > you should not put it in include/uapi/. > > > > After the API is finalized, you can move it to > > include/uapi. > > So a little bit of background. I and a few others thought it was done, and > pushed it to Linus. Then when it made it into his tree (and mentioned on > LWN) it got a wider audience that had concerns. After they brought up those > concerns, we agreed that this needs a bit more work. I was hoping not to do > a full revert and simply marked the change for broken so that it can be > worked on upstream with the wider audience. Linus appears to be fine with > this approach, as he helped me with my "mark for BROKEN" patch. > > Mathieu's concern is that this header file could be used in older distros > with newer kernels that have it implemented and added this to keep out of > those older distros. > > The options to make Mathieu sleep better at night are: > > 1) this patch > > 2) move this file out of uapi. > > 3) revert the entire thing. > > I really do not want to do #3 but I am willing to do 1 or 2. I see. Either 1 or 2 is OK if you are sure this will be fixed sooner or later. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
