Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147012-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:25:43 +0200
From: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: API break, sysfs "capability" file
Message-ID: <Zh6KZ7ynHuOd0mgQ@gardel-login>
References: <ZhQJf8mzq_wipkBH@gardel-login>
 <54e3c969-3ee8-40d8-91d9-9b9402001d27@leemhuis.info>
 <ZhQ6ZBmThBBy_eEX@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <ZhRSVSmNmb_IjCCH@gardel-login>
 <ZhRyhDCT5cZCMqYj@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <ZhT5_fZ9SrM0053p@gardel-login>
 <20240409141531.GB21514@lst.de>
 <d7a2b07c-26eb-4d55-8aa7-137168bd0b49@kernel.dk>
 <Zh6IpqnSfGHXMjVa@gardel-login>
 <b74f99e8-5a50-4e93-987f-0bcfc0c27959@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b74f99e8-5a50-4e93-987f-0bcfc0c27959@kernel.dk>

On Di, 16.04.24 08:22, Jens Axboe (axboe@kernel.dk) wrote:

> On 4/16/24 8:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Di, 09.04.24 09:17, Jens Axboe (axboe@kernel.dk) wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/9/24 8:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>>> All I am looking for is a very simple test that returns me a boolean:
> >>>> is there kernel-level partition scanning enabled on this device or
> >>>> not.
> >>>
> >>> And we can add a trivial sysfs attribute for that.
> >>
> >> And I think we should. I don't know what was being smoked adding a sysfs
> >> interface that exposed internal flag values - and honestly what was
> >> being smoked to rely on that, but I think it's fair to say that the
> >> majority of the fuckup here is on the kernel side.
> >
> > Yeah, it's a shitty interface, the kernel is rich in that. But it was
> > excessively well documented, better in fact than almost all other
> > kernel interfaces:
> >
> > ? https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.16/block/capability.html ?
> >
> > If you document something on so much detail in the API docs, how do
> > you expect this *not* to be relied on by userspace.
>
> This is _internal_ documentation, not user ABI documentation. The fact
> that it's talking about internal flag values should make that clear,
> though I can definitely see how that's just badly exposed along with
> other things that document things that users/admins could care about.

The text begins with:

    "This file documents the sysfs file block/<disk>/capability."

So it makes very clear this is about the sysfs interface.

Are you saying that sysfs of the block layer should be considered an
*internal* kernel API? That's a wild definition, if I may say so.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin