From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753376AbYLAWVW (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:21:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752251AbYLAWVE (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:21:04 -0500 Received: from waste.org ([66.93.16.53]:43764 "EHLO waste.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751570AbYLAWVD (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:21:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Add /proc/mempool to display mempool usage From: Matt Mackall To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , randy.dunlap@oracle.com, greg@kroah.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, remi.colinet@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <84144f020812011402v3cb3ab24pf5cb6310f2d00c5b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1227980689.6354.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081129214207.GA6747@x200.localdomain> <20081129234907.GA2340@kroah.com> <20081201101245.0a2f3123.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1228158811.3196.88.camel@calx> <20081201120210.1ed16bd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020812011207q29fe4b3fq11a9e55f171cf743@mail.gmail.com> <84144f020812011402v3cb3ab24pf5cb6310f2d00c5b@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:20:34 -0600 Message-Id: <1228170034.3196.107.camel@calx> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 00:02 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote: > >> Hmm, I thought Documentation/ABI/ was supposed to tell us what's an > >> ABI you can depend on and what's not. I mean, you shouldn't be > >> depending on anything but the interfaces documented in > >> Documentation/ABI/stable/, no? > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > Who is the f*cking MORON that thinks that "documentation" has any meaning > > what-so-ever? > > Me, I suppose. At least that's the impression I got when being asked > to document any new kmemtrace debugfs files, for example. > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > The fact that something is documented (whether correctly or not) has > > absolutely _zero_ impact on anything at all. What makes something an ABI > > is that it's useful and available. The only way something isn't an ABI is > > by _explicitly_ making sure that it's not available even by mistake in a > > stable form for binary use. > > OK, but why do we have those different ABI "stages" in > Documentation/ABI then? The README file there seems to contradict what > you say. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong... If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain. – Swedish army manual. If code uses a public interface and we break that interface, we will get unhappy users. Putting stuff in debugfs/ in a released kernel makes it public. That's the terrain. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.