[Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Reviewing new API/ABI
Jiri Kosina
jkosina at suse.cz
Mon May 12 06:37:32 UTC 2014
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> >> index 7578deb..52a282b 100644
> >> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >> @@ -210,6 +210,13 @@ S: Supported
> >> F: Documentation/scsi/aacraid.txt
> >> F: drivers/scsi/aacraid/
> >>
> >> +ABI/API
> >> +L: linux-api at vger.kernel.org
> >> +F: Documentation/ABI/
> >> +F: include/linux/syscalls.h
> >> +F: include/uapi/
> >> +F: kernel/sys_ni.c
> >> +
> >
> > It'd be nice to have also sysfs changes covered as well if this is not
> > just about API, but also ABI; I am not sure whether this could be covered
> > by MAINTAINERS pattern, but at least mentioning this list in
> > Documentation/ABI/README seems appropriate.
>
> If sysfs is in,
Well, sysfs definitely is considered kernel ABI.
> what about cgroupfs? Which has been under dramatic changes.
This is of course interesting (and important) question per se -- the
amount of interfaces between userspace and kernelspace is growing at a
rapid pace (especially a lot of crap gets added into debugfs I guess), and
it's not always clearly defined what is considered proper ABI and thus
should be maintained stable.
Is "if we ever get a report about userspace regression because of kernel
interface change" enough well-defined criteria? What if there is userspace
depending on the contents of the kernel ringbuffer? Etc etc ...
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
More information about the Ksummit-discuss
mailing list