[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ya/9/RsStgLUnEyy@sol.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 16:36:13 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] docs: consolidate sysfs-block into Documentation/ABI/
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:05:39PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:32:45AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 12/1/21 12:45 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > This series consolidates the documentation for /sys/block/<disk>/queue/
> > > into Documentation/ABI/, where it is supposed to go (as per Greg KH:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/YaXXpEAwVGTLjp1e@kroah.com).
> > >
> > > This series also updates MAINTAINERS to associate the block
> > > documentation with the block layer.
> > >
> > > This series applies to linux-block/for-next.
> > >
> > > Eric Biggers (7):
> > > docs: sysfs-block: sort alphabetically
> > > docs: sysfs-block: add contact for nomerges
> > > docs: sysfs-block: fill in missing documentation from queue-sysfs.rst
> > > docs: sysfs-block: document stable_writes
> > > docs: sysfs-block: document virt_boundary_mask
> > > docs: block: remove queue-sysfs.rst
> > > MAINTAINERS: add entries for block layer documentation
> > >
> > > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-block | 766 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > Documentation/block/index.rst | 1 -
> > > Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.rst | 321 -----------
> > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +
> > > 4 files changed, 545 insertions(+), 545 deletions(-)
> > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.rst
> >
> > How about adding a patch that moves Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-block
> > to Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block? The block layer sysfs ABI is used
> > widely by user space software and is considered stable.
> >
>
> That would make sense. I decided not to include it in this patch series since
> some of the sysfs-block files were added recently, so may not be as "stable" as
> ones that have been around for 18 years, and because about 90% of the sysfs
> documentation is in the "testing" directory anyway so it is not unusual. So I
> felt it should be a separate change.
>
> I think these patches should go in first, and then I can send a separate patch
> that moves the file to the stable directory, if there is no objection to it.
>
Since no one has objected and this series hasn't been applied yet, I guess I'll
just go ahead and send out a new series which includes the renaming to stable.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists