[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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.


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-31 00:55    [W:0.045 / U:7.156 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site