Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:32:41 -0800 | From | Steven Roberts <> | Subject | Re: IOCTL documentation (was: Adding checkpointing API to Linux kernel) |
| |
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > Hi Steven, > > > (hmmm... thinking I may have just voleentered :) > > It's a dandelion problem -- you pull on it, and you find a whole root > system underneath it. > > The problem is: "how do you document an entity where hundreds of unrelated > people check in code everywhere, and your desire for documentation > exceeds the willingness of those hundreds of people to write it." Yes, I realize it would be impossible to keep all of them documented, but I would think that at least the basic ioctl's (say for changing baud on a serial port) would be fairly static and those the documentation would stay correct > > When Linus decides he wants more documentation, he can make that a > criterion for accepting a patch. He can lay out whatever rules he likes. > My suggestion is: "if your code has an interface to userland, your patch > must have a file in Documentation/ somewhere that documents the interface > to userland." > I wouldn't be trying to have a completely inclusive set, just something that would at least contain a bunch of them so at least most programmers wouldn't have to dig.
Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |