> You are talking about the RAS code, but David changed more than that. He 
> changed the name of the lock on all of struct proc. That is used outside 
> of just the RAS code.

There is a very good tool for detecting source compatibility (gcc),
whereas binary compatibility gets harder - hence the need to change
version numbers (or, IMHO, better the names of the symbols).

In this case the non-ras change was to rename a structure field,
changing the kernel version won't make it any easier/harder to
decide why the sources dont build.

I did try to find all the code is src/sys that referenced these fields,
as always a couple escaped - probably when I way trying to edit the
shell variable that contained the great long list of filenames... - and
there was an odd typo in an arch I can't compile.

In any case, it is probably better to change the structure layout
as infrequently as possible - just so it doesn't matter if user-space stuff
is slightly out of date.

Actually we probably ought to make sysctl kinfo_proc support a kernel
build option and move the C definition into (say sysctl_proc.h).

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk