linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc,xen: document hypervisor sysfs nodes for xen

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]

Date:   Mon, 22 May 2017 16:20:36 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc,xen: document hypervisor sysfs nodes for xen

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 <jgross@...e.com>
>> ---
>>  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?

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

Next question then: where to put the new guest_type of patch 2?


Juergen