On 05.06.2019 18:59, Paul Goyette wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > >> On 05.06.2019 17:59, Paul Goyette wrote: >>> An easier question: >>> >>> Does an old HAXM module still work correctly with a new kernel? AND >>> Does a new HAXM module still work correctly with an old kernel? >>> >> >> Actually HAXM does not use these structs but I propose to bump minor >> number nonetheless as we want to keep kernel and modules (ptrace is a >> module) synced. > > Yep. If ptrace is a module, and it exchanges contents of the 'struct > x86_fpu_save' with the kernel, then you need a bump. Otherwise one > might attempt to run a new kernel with old ptrace module, or old kernel > with new ptrace module. > I've recommended to Michal to hold on with merging this into HEAD as a last minute feature. We can wait for -9 branching and add it after the branch. If it will work well with real applications such as gdb and other debuggers (edb, ...) we can backport it to -9 before the NetBSD 9.0 release. Keeping it longer on HEAD will give more flexibility with design changes if needed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature