On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 12:30:35PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 11:54 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:40:18AM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > > > In reality, this is not something that is high priority for cloud > > > providers, because these kinds of incompatibilities would be found > > > during qualification; the kernel will fail to update by detecting a > > > version mismatch during boot instead of during shutdown. > > > > Given I expect CSPs will have to add-in specific version support for > > their own special version-pair needs, I think it would be helpful in > > the long run to have a tool that reported what versions a kernel build > > wrote and parsed. Test-to-learn the same information sounds a bit too > > difficult. > > Yes, I agree. My point was only about the near term: it's just not a > priority at the moment. This won't block us in the future, as we can > always add a tooling later to inject the required ELF segments for > pre-live update checks. Yes, but lets design things to have this kind of logical code model where there are specific serializations, with specific versions that are at least discoverably by greping for some struct luo_xxx_ops or whatever. Let's avoid open coding versioning stuff where it is hard to find and hard to later make a manifest out of Jason
