linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: Add real-time

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250815092019.EAd9FdNN@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:20:19 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: Add real-time

On 2025-07-15 14:29:42 [-0600], Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> So overall it looks good, but I do have one overriding question:
> 
> - Who is the audience for this documentation?
> 
> I think it's an important question to ask, because something this easily
> becomes an unorganized pile of stuff that somebody thought should be
> written down somewhere - better than nothing, but hard for readers to
> use effectively.
> 
> A good first step would be to supply a paragraph or two in the new
> Documentation/real-time/index.rst describing the nature of the
> documentation and who it is intended for.

The main audience are kernel developers.

> Then ... think about whether a new top-level directory under
> Documentation makes sense.  I've been working for years to reduce those,
> so I tend to push back a little when new ones show up.
> 
> - Is this documentation for kernel developers in general, with the idea
>   of maybe helping them to not break PREEMPT_RT so often?  Then perhaps
>   documentation with that focus under core-api/ makes sense.
> 
> - Is it, instead, intended as overall design documentation?  We don't
>   really have a good place for that now, maybe we need a new design/
>   book to gather such material.
> 
> See what I'm getting at?  I'm not saying that these docs *have* to go
> somewhere else, but I do think it's worth thinking about.

While thinking about it I moved it to core-api. There might some user
bits which in terms of setup which might fit under admin-guide.

> Thanks,
> 
> jon

Sebastian