Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:51:07 -0700 | | From | Greg KH <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm] PM: add /sys/power documentation to Documentation/ABI |
| |
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 03:32:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This ABI/ thing rather snuck under my radar (I saw it go past, but a lot of > things go past).
It had a lot of review the first time around. The second and third had relatively little.
> It'll be good if it works, but it is going to take quite a lot of thought, > effort and maintainer vigilance to be successful and to avoid becoming > rotware.
I agree.
> I wonder how hard it would be to write a script which parses a diff, works > out if it touches ABI things, complain if it doesn't alter > Documentation/ABI/*? Not very - it's just a matter of defining a suitable > regexp.
That would be good to have.
> What _should_ be documented in there, anyway? > > - syscalls, obviously. > > - /proc? If so, everything, or are there exceptions? > > - /sys? If so, everything, or are there exceptions? > > - ioctl numbers and payloads? > > - netlink messages? > > - ethtool thingies? netdev interface names? /proc/iomem identifiers? > module names? kernel-thread comm[] contents? The ABI is pretty fat. > > scary.
Yes, our ABI is scary. And yes, all of the above is needed to be documented if we want to have a handle on this thing.
It is probably something that we can throw at the janitors list for the existing stuff to get some help.
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |