Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:25:39 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Robert Richter <rrichter@marvell.com>
Cc:     Hanna Hawa <hhhawa@amazon.com>,
        "mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        "james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dwmw@amazon.co.uk" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        "benh@amazon.com" <benh@amazon.com>,
        "ronenk@amazon.com" <ronenk@amazon.com>,
        "talel@amazon.com" <talel@amazon.com>,
        "jonnyc@amazon.com" <jonnyc@amazon.com>,
        "hanochu@amazon.com" <hanochu@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] edac: Add an API for edac device to report for
 multiple errors
Message-ID: <20191001102539.GB5390@zn.tnic>
References: <20190923191741.29322-1-hhhawa@amazon.com>
 <20190923191741.29322-2-hhhawa@amazon.com>
 <20190930145046.GH29694@zn.tnic>
 <20191001065649.a6454bh4ncgdpigf@rric.localdomain>
 <20191001083242.GA5390@zn.tnic>
 <20191001094659.5of5ul2tof6s75px@rric.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191001094659.5of5ul2tof6s75px@rric.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:47:07AM +0000, Robert Richter wrote:
> If you move to static inline for edac_device_handle_{ce,ue} the
> symbols vanish and this breaks the abi. That's why the split in two
> patches.

ABI issues do not concern upstream. And that coming from me working at a
company who dance a lot to make ABI happy.

Also, I'm missing the reasoning why you use the ABI as an argument at
all: do you know of a particular case where people are thinking of
backporting this or this is all hypothetical.

> Your comment to not have a __ version as a third variant of the
> interface makes sense to me. But to keep ABI your patch still needs to
> be split.

Not really - normally, when you fix ABI issues with symbols
disappearing, all of a sudden, you add dummy ones so that the ABI
checker is happy.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette