From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935109AbdEVOs7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 10:48:59 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:48282 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934628AbdEVOs6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 10:48:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc,xen: document hypervisor sysfs nodes for xen To: Juergen Gross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org References: <20170522085700.488-1-jgross@suse.com> <20170522085700.488-2-jgross@suse.com> <41703c16-f2c4-7f35-b445-33bf35ea7f56@oracle.com> From: Boris Ostrovsky Message-ID: <5c20fe4c-9141-950f-80d0-5f6b036770d4@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:46 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/22/2017 10:20 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 22/05/17 15:30, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 05/22/2017 04:56 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> Today only a few sysfs nodes under /sys/hypervisor/ are documented >>> for Xen in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu. Rename >>> this file to Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor and add >>> descriptions of the other nodes. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross >>> --- >>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu | 23 ----- >>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>> 3 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor >>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor >> I wonder whether at least some of the non-pmu entries should by now be >> considered stable. > Hmm, do you think the pmu entries are not? Given XSA-163 I don't think we can declare PMU stable. > > I could: > > a) move sysfs-hypervisor as posted here to stable > b) leave the pmu entries in testing and just add another doc for > the non-pmu entries in stable > c) do some split of the non-pmu entries (which to put where?) > d) or let it all in testing I'd say (b). > > Next question then: where to put the new guest_type of patch 2? Since this is just being added testing/sysfs-hypervisor seems to be the proper place. Especially with documentation suggesting that 2-year back-compatibility is needed for an interface to be declared stable. -boris