Subject: Re: [RFC] Add kernel<->userspace ABI stability documentation
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, davej@redhat.com, perex@suse.cz,
       Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060227191108.GA9221@suse.de>
References: <20060227190150.GA9121@kroah.com>
	 <1141067298.2992.154.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
	 <20060227191108.GA9221@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:17:11 +0100
Message-Id: <1141067831.2992.156.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1039
Lines: 23


> > 2) the per interface description needs a "depends on config option"
> > field; not all options are always there, but depend on a config option
> > to be set. It makes a lot of sense to mark these as such so that users
> > KNOW they have to deal with the interface not being there occasionally,
> > depending on the kernel.
> 
> Hm, almost _everything_ is configurable these days, including sysfs.  Do
> we really want to keep the config value in sync with the kernel config
> system too?  I can add it, but it seems a bit unnecessary.


well there is "configurable" and "configurable"... but yeah. I don't
mean to document which config options it depends on, but more
"applications need to deal with this not being there since it's optional
and not uncommon to be disabled" or something.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/