Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc,xen: document hypervisor sysfs nodes for xen | From | Boris Ostrovsky <> | Date | Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:46 -0400 |
| |
On 05/22/2017 10:20 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 22/05/17 15:30, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 05/22/2017 04:56 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> Today only a few sysfs nodes under /sys/hypervisor/ are documented >>> for Xen in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu. Rename >>> this file to Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor and add >>> descriptions of the other nodes. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> >>> --- >>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu | 23 ----- >>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>> 3 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor >>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor >> I wonder whether at least some of the non-pmu entries should by now be >> considered stable. > Hmm, do you think the pmu entries are not?
Given XSA-163 I don't think we can declare PMU stable.
> > I could: > > a) move sysfs-hypervisor as posted here to stable > b) leave the pmu entries in testing and just add another doc for > the non-pmu entries in stable > c) do some split of the non-pmu entries (which to put where?) > d) or let it all in testing
I'd say (b).
> > Next question then: where to put the new guest_type of patch 2?
Since this is just being added testing/sysfs-hypervisor seems to be the proper place. Especially with documentation suggesting that 2-year back-compatibility is needed for an interface to be declared stable.
-boris
| |