linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 13/20] gpio: uapi: document uAPI v1 as deprecated

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: <20200922090518.GA493023@sol>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:05:18 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 13/20] gpio: uapi: document uAPI v1 as deprecated

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:49:11AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:36 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >  /*
> >   *  ABI v1
> > + *
> > + * This version of the ABI is deprecated and will be removed in the future.
> > + * Use the latest version of the ABI, defined above, instead.
> >   */
> 
> How intentional is the wording here? It seems unrealistic that the v1 ABI
> would be removed any time soon if there are existing users and applications
> cannot yet rely on v2 to be present in all kernels, so it sounds like a hollow
> threat.
> 

Andy had a similar comment regarding the build option, which I updated,
but missed updating it here.  The updated sentence ends at deprecated.
I will update these to match in the next rev.

> At the same time I can see that telling users it will be removed can lead to
> them moving on to the new version more quickly, so maybe a hollow threat
> is in fact appropriate here ;-)
> 

That was the idea - though even the sysfs interface is still there
and doesn't seem to be going anywhere in a hurry.

Cheers,
Kent.