linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Add /proc/mempool to display mempool usage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1228170034.3196.107.camel@calx>
Date:	Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:20:34 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, greg@...ah.com, adobriyan@...il.com,
	remi.colinet@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Add /proc/mempool to display mempool usage

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
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> 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
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> 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.

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