netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 12/14] MAINTAINERS: add maintainers for netlink_yml

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: <20250614124649.2c41407c@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 12:46:49 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Akira
 Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Ignacio
 Encinas Rubio <ignacio@...cinas.com>, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>,
 Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Ruben
 Wauters <rubenru09@....com>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
 joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkmm@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 peterz@...radead.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/14] MAINTAINERS: add maintainers for
 netlink_yml_parser.py

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:56:09 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > I understand that from the PoV of ease of maintenance of the docs.
> > Is it fair to say there is a trade off here between ease of maintenance
> > for docs maintainers and encouraging people to integrate with kernel
> > docs in novel ways?  
> 
> Placing elsewhere won't make much difference from doc maintainers and
> developers.

I must be missing your point. Clearly it makes a difference to Donald,
who is a maintainer of the docs in question.

> I'm more interested on having a single place where python libraries
> could be placed.

Me too, especially for selftests. But it's not clear to me that
scripts/ is the right location. I thought purely user space code
should live in tools/ and bulk of YNL is for user space.

> Eventually, some classes might be re-used in the future
> by multiple scripts and subsystems, when it makes sense, just like we do
> already with Kernel's kAPIs. This also helps when checking what is the
> Python's minimal version that are required by the Kernel when updating
> it at:

I think this is exactly the same point Donald is making, but from YNL
perspective. The hope is to share more code between the ReST generator,
the existing C generator and Python library. The later two are already
based on a shared spec model.