Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:17:30 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 29/29] arm64: dts: qcom: Harmonize DWC USB3 DT nodes name |
| |
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:54:51AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > I always thought that ABI is supposed to be something what is > thoroughly documented and firmly declared to be so. It isn't something > claimed to be on a random nature but defined to be one when it's > more-or-less standardized. Thus the Linux kernel developers decide not > to change something unless it went through the series of iterations like > testing, stable, obsolete, remove. As I see it the rule-of-thumb is > supposed to be as "nothing is ABI unless it's declared as such".
Not true at all. Again, if something works in an older kernel version, and you upgrade to a new kernel version and it breaks, that is a regression and must be fixed/reverted.
Lack of documentation does not mean an ABI can be changed.
greg k-h
| |