From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BDAC5AC for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A8F49A for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:49:10 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Greg KH Message-ID: <20170814154910.249caf70@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20170804160454.GC13098@kroah.com> References: <20170804022639.p27oliuinqqatar2@thunk.org> <20170804160454.GC13098@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] ABI feature gates? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:04:54 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > We could start searching linux-next for new additions of sysfs files > (search for the ATTR macros), and complain that there are no matching > Documentation/ABI/ updates at the same time. I try to do that when > reviewing patches that come through my trees, but yes, this is hard to > keep up to date with. > > Sounds like a good GSoC project though, setting up the infrastructure to > do this in a semi-automated fashion. And perhaps do the same for new tracepoints. I'm wondering if we should start documenting all tracepoints, and have them not be added unless there's documentation with them. -- Steve