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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
