[Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Reviewing new API/ABI
Greg KH
greg at kroah.com
Tue May 6 19:00:24 UTC 2014
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 10:45:05AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> There doesn't currently seem to be any real process for reviewing new
> core APIs for sanity of design, appropriateness to solve the problem
> they're targetting, or correctness of implementation. Some examples
> that come to mind recently:
>
> - A lot of people seem to think that O_TMPFILE is a terrible
> interface, despite the fact that the functionality it provides is very
> useful. It was also rather badly broken until -rc8 or so.
>
> - The x86 32-bit vdso clock functions almost made it in with a
> questionable symbol version.
>
> - 3.15 is currently slated to include an unfortunate ABI glitch in
> the MIPS seccomp filter interface. There's a patch.
>
> - There are some aspects of the keyring API that seem to me to be quite bad.
>
> - An impressive number of new APIs are missing -EINVAL returns if
> reserved parameters are set.
>
> (I'm not trying to point a finger at anyone with these examples;
> they're just things that I was involved in to some extent.)
>
> The current process is confused. For example, I currently plan on
> trying to remember to ask Linus to revert the MIPS seccomp stuff or
> fix it sometime around -rc6 if the patch hasn't landed, but this
> sucks.
>
> I think that the process could be improved. I think that there are
> people who are willing to spend time to read API docs and thinking
> about these kinds of issues. (I am, and Michael Kerrisk seems to do a
> fair amount of it.)
We do have linux-api, which should be cc:ed for new api additions. But
it usually isn't :(
More information about the Ksummit-discuss
mailing list