Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 00:09:43 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     John Moon <quic_johmoo@quicinc.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Matthias Maennich <maennich@google.com>,
        Giuliano Procida <gprocida@google.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com, libabigail@sourceware.org,
        Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@amazon.com>,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com>,
        Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@quicinc.com>,
        Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Validating UAPI backwards compatibility
Message-ID: <ZArlx5wrw+ZQWUg4@infradead.org>
References: <20230301075402.4578-1-quic_johmoo@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230301075402.4578-1-quic_johmoo@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:54:00PM -0800, John Moon wrote:
> Our goal is to add tooling for vendor driver developers because the
> upstream model of expert maintainer code review can be difficult to
> replicate in-house. Tools may help developers catch simple UAPI
> incompatibilities that could be easily overlooked by in-house review.

Why would this matter in any way for the kernel?  If you tool is useful
for in-kernel usage it should be added to the tree and documented as
such, but ouf of tree crap simply does not matter.