[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190415104109.64d914f3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:41:09 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Manoj Rao <linux@...ojrajarao.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
atish patra <atishp04@...il.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending
kernel easier
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:38:34 -0700
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> >From my perspective, this is where we're at:
>
> This patch seems to have been met with a lot of responses in the tone
> of "this is not an appealing solution". Meanwhile, some of the
> suggested alternative solutions have not worked out, and we are now at
> a point where there's less interest in exploring alternatives and
> arguments to merge as-is with only minor adjustments.
Another consideration to make is difficulty of support. Having a
tarball compressed headers may not be an appealing solution, but it
isn't one that would be too much of an issue to support. Having a
better interface would be difficult to get right, and if you get it
wrong, you are now stuck with supporting something that may become a
big pain to do so in the future.
> I'd be a *lot* less hesitant if this went into debugfs or another
> location than /proc, which is one of the most regression-sensitive
> interfaces we have in the kernel.
>
I agree with this assessment. We shouldn't use config.gz as precedence
for this solution. config.gz should have been in debugfs to begin with,
but I don't believe debugfs was around when config.gz was introduced.
(Don't have time to look into the history of the two).
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists