Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug

[David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)]

On 12/1/25 21:25, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:10:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> > Just to be clear, I don't think it exist and also I don't think that it
> > should exist.
>
> By that logic if it doesn't exist and someone sends a patch, I should simply
> ignore a review comment about that patch breaking some non-existent ABI and
> simply take it.

Well, we can always discuss and see if there is a way to not break a 
specific use case, independent of any ABI stability guarantees.

> Well, it certainly works for me.
>
> Unless you folks come-a-runnin' later screaming it broke some use case of
> yours. 

Heh, not me, but likely some of the CoCo folks regarding this specific 
use case (kexec in a confidential VM).

> And then we're back to what I've been preaching on this thread from the
> very beginning: having a common agreement on what ABI Linux enforces.

Right. Maybe Kiryl knows more about this specific case as he brought up that
these structures are versioned.

--
Cheers

David