Comment # 6 on bug 1187011 from Lawrence Somerville

Thank you, Larry Finger, for kindly taking some time to within only hours after
my Bugzilla posting here to promptly reply to it.  Concerning your phrase
���������openSUSE has backported a number of kernel API changes into their kernels,��������� I
don���������t know the details or maybe even understand much of the operational part of
that phrase.  The term ���������backport��������� was a term I did not understand.  From
https://www.webopedia.com/definitions/backport/ on the Internet I could see
that at least one definition of backporting is the process of applying a
computer-software patch to an older version of software than the software for
which the patch was originally intended.  But the trouble with this definition
here is that, according to you, backporting has been applied to one or more
Linux kernels in Leap 15.3, which was only released 11 days ago, so could
hardly be considered old software.  I assume that the abbreviation API you used
would stand for Application Programming Interface.  I assume that openSUSE
would begin with a version of the Linux kernel from https://kernel.org/ and
afterward adapt that kernel version in some ways to an openSUSE ���������environment.���������

So would you please provide some teaching for me here?  That is please provide
a definition of backporting which would apply to the changes made in the
versions of the Linux kernel which openSUSE would provide.  In detail please
explain with some real examples appropriate for openSUSE Leap what is
considered new and what is considered old software in such ���������backporting.��������� 
Please explain why it is even necessary to make any changes to the version of
the Linux kernel which https://kernel.org/ would provide to make such a
modified kernel version work in an openSUSE software ���������environment.���������  I have
learned that a so-called driver file is needed to provide ���������communication���������
between an operating system and an item of computer hardware in order to make
that piece of hardware function in that operating system.  But modifying a
Linux kernel so that it will be workable in an openSUSE operating system seems
to be more basic than a driver to make a piece of computer hardware work in an
operating system in the sense of modifying one piece of computer software to
make it work with another piece of computer software.  I assume that OBS would
stand for openSUSE Build Service with the lower-case ���������o��������� in openSUSE modified
as a capital letter ���������O��������� in the abbreviation OBS.  I guess that at least some of
the source computer code in the openSUSE software package entitled
kernel-source might be written in the C computer language.  And I further guess
that the API changes that would be in versions of the Linux kernel supplied by
openSUSE would be included in kernel-source.  Please provide some examples of
such necessary API changes in openSUSE Leap.  You may correct any of my
mistaken assumptions or guesses here.  You might have to consult some openSUSE
computer-code writers to obtain answers to some of my questions and/or to
correct some of the thinking I express here; and, if so, that process might
result in the good outcome of each of us learning some new things and/or to
understand some basic things concerning openSUSE computer software.  And you
might even be successful in having one of the computer-code writers provide
some relevant teaching here.

I can imagine that a main purpose of a Bugzilla posting could be for an
openSUSE user to report problems with openSUSE computer software so that
openSUSE computer-code writers can become aware of those problems and hopefully
fix them and then afterward for someone, maybe one of the actual computer-code
writers, to hopefully eventually report here that the reported
computer-software problem will have been fixed.  But let���������s here have something
even beyond those good purposes!  That is let���������s have some teaching and learning
take place here as well!  If we would be in the same room having a
conversation, I could now say, ���������What will you say to that?���������  But since we
instead are online and communicating in writing I instead write, ���������What will you
write in response to my proposal that a Bugzilla posting also include some
specific teaching and learning relating to, for example, why a
computer-software problem exists, how the computer software has been designed
to work, how various parts of the computer software are designed to work
together, what has to occur to make the computer code work successfully, what
the precise software problem was, the process and software diagnostic computer
code or codes someone used to specifically locate an error in computer
software, what process he used to fix an item of computer software, with these
last two processes included in the so-called ���������debugging��������� process; et cetera?��������� 
I think you have at least begun to write in a general way along some of these
lines.  But to have more specific information with examples of specifically
named items of computer software provided in pedagogical way such that I could
understand some details would hopefully be more satisfying for me, even though
information provided in that way might raise further questions in my mind.  But
I think that asking questions and obtaining answers to them is a good way to
learn and gain understanding.  And besides that, that process could be fun.  Do
you agree with me?  

Actually either an openSUSE online ���������forum��������� or a Bugzilla posting could in
principle be a ���������vehicle��������� by which such teaching and learning could take place. 
I further think that having begun a discussion in either place, it could be
natural to continue it there, except in an openSUSE online ���������forum��������� posting when
it becomes clear that a software problem needs to be reported in a Bugzilla
posting so that it can be fixed.