[PATCH 1/2] build: add backward compatibility for nested drivers
Thomas Monjalon
thomas at monjalon.net
Wed Sep 24 10:43:42 CEST 2025
23/09/2025 15:28, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> > Yes, that is a good point for discussion. Seen as support for the legacy
> > names were already dropped and I wasn't aware of any ABI like policy
> > about it, I thought there may be a preference for deprecation
> > warning/continuing to move to the new name only.
> >
> > I would be happy to keep the legacy name without a warning/deprecation
> > for a longer term and we could adopt this as general guideline by
> > default too. It should not cost much effort to do this.
>
> Agreed. If we do decide after a while to remove an old name, then we should
> do a deprecation notice first.
I don't think we should require a notice if there is no deprecation,
just an alias added.
> > Another minor point is, if this needs a Fixes tag? Yes, in the sense it
> > feels like it added a banana skin for users (the patches are because I
> > hit this issue with 25.07). I didn't add it for now, as no guarantees
> > were broken and there isn't an upstream stable for backporting to anyway.
>
> If there is no backporting, I'm not sure it matters. Maybe add one anyway
> to imply that this was something that should have been thought of in the
> original patch.
Backports are not only for upstream branches.
If someone wants to maintain 25.07 privately,
it is good to know what to backport.
More information about the dev
mailing list