[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b8e7935-6b80-4f00-9a44-7003071d1a21@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:12:06 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Tomáš Mudruňka <tomas.mudrunka@...il.com>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet
<corbet@....net>, Cengiz Can <cengiz@...nel.wtf>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Anselm Schüler <mail@...elmschueler.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: sysrq: Rewrite /proc/sysrq-trigger
usage
On 10/20/25 4:50 AM, Tomáš Mudruňka wrote:
>> I am still OK with removing the 2 "However" lines. We don't typically
>> document or provide warnings for how the code might be changed in the
>> future. If someone modifies this code and the documentation needs to be
>> updated, it should be updated at that time.
>>
>> --
>> ~Randy
>
> Problem here is, that you cannot really modify the code without warning
> users in advance. This is the warning.
All code in the kernel is subject to change in the future (anything
that breaks userspace less so than other code).
I don't see thousands of warnings about such future changes.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists