Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Reviewing new API/ABI

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1785 bytes --]

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:36:27PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > We have seen several review, test and documentation procedures being developed
> > for different subsystems in the recent past (two examples are the DRM i915
> > driver API test rules explained by Daniel Vetter in a reply to this mail
> > thread, and the V4L test suite and documentation procedure) but I have seen
> > little effort to consolidate good practice rules. The kernel would certainly
> > benefit from both sharing information about how various subsystems tackle the
> > API review/test/documentation problem.
> >
> > Forcing all subsystems to adhere and enforce a superset of rules would likely
> > put too much burden on maintainers and developers, especially for the smaller
> > subsystems. However, I believe we could help by gathering and consolidating
> > the good practice rules in a single location under Documentation/. Maintainers
> > could then implement those rules (or a subset thereof) without having to
> > reinvent the wheel. Rules such as "return -EINVAL when a reserved parameter is
> > set" are not complex to implement in code, the real challenge is to implement
> > them in the brain of all developers and reviewers.
> 
> I'd be very interested in a discussions about existing best practices
> already developed in different subsystems and figuring out what
> minimal standards we should requires across the board.

+1

I'd like to have some procedures for my subsystem as well and was
wondering what other people have experienced so far. I already started
digging and trying to find a scheme where that stuff could be collected.
Never got too far sadly :(


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]