Bug 2057238

Hi, Ming,

In RHEL 9, we will only preserve kabi for z-stream.  In other words, we will NOT preserve kabi from one minor release to the next.  Do you still want to add padding?

(In reply to Jeff Moyer from comment #3)
> Hi, Ming,
> 
> In RHEL 9, we will only preserve kabi for z-stream.  In other words, we will
> NOT preserve kabi from one minor release to the next.  Do you still want to
> add padding?

Hi Jeff,

Will z-stream require feature backporting? If yes, I think we still need to reserve
padding. Also without padding, sometimes it can be hard to backport some bug fix which
may touch public structures. 

So look we still need to reserve padding?

But now the good thing is that we can adjust padding in minor release.


Thanks,
Ming

(In reply to Ming Lei from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jeff Moyer from comment #3)
> > Hi, Ming,
> > 
> > In RHEL 9, we will only preserve kabi for z-stream.  In other words, we will
> > NOT preserve kabi from one minor release to the next.  Do you still want to
> > add padding?
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Will z-stream require feature backporting? If yes, I think we still need to
> reserve padding.

No.  Z-stream is bugfix only.

> Also without padding, sometimes it can be hard to backport some bug
> fix which may touch public structures. 
> 
> So look we still need to reserve padding?

It certainly doesn't hurt to reserve padding.

> But now the good thing is that we can adjust padding in minor release.

We can, but that will only help future z-streams (not existing, released ones).

I'm okay with adding the padding, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the new policy, and to see what your thoughts were.

Thanks!
Jeff

(In reply to Jeff Moyer from comment #5)
> (In reply to Ming Lei from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jeff Moyer from comment #3)
> > > Hi, Ming,
> > > 
> > > In RHEL 9, we will only preserve kabi for z-stream.  In other words, we will
> > > NOT preserve kabi from one minor release to the next.  Do you still want to
> > > add padding?
> > 
> > Hi Jeff,
> > 
> > Will z-stream require feature backporting? If yes, I think we still need to
> > reserve padding.
> 
> No.  Z-stream is bugfix only.
> 
> > Also without padding, sometimes it can be hard to backport some bug
> > fix which may touch public structures. 
> > 
> > So look we still need to reserve padding?
> 
> It certainly doesn't hurt to reserve padding.
> 
> > But now the good thing is that we can adjust padding in minor release.
> 
> We can, but that will only help future z-streams (not existing, released
> ones).
> 
> I'm okay with adding the padding, I just wanted to make sure you were aware
> of the new policy, and to see what your thoughts were.

OK, thanks for sharing the new policy.

Given some subsystems have reserved padding for public structure(schedueler, pci,
scsi, cgroup, ...) already, I'd suggest to do that for block player public
structure too.


Thanks,

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (new packages: kernel), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:3907