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

[Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>]

On 2014/5/7 19:48, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 
>> From 424c7365ed5ed64190a1d08fe30c8e86832368b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
>> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:20:25 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add linux-api for review of API/ABI changes
>>
>> This makes it more likely that patch submitters will CC API/ABI changes
>> to the linux-api list, and tools like get_maintainer.pl will do so
>> automatically.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 7578deb..52a282b 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -210,6 +210,13 @@ S:	Supported
>>  F:	Documentation/scsi/aacraid.txt
>>  F:	drivers/scsi/aacraid/
>>  
>> +ABI/API
>> +L:	linux-api@vger.kernel.org
>> +F:	Documentation/ABI/
>> +F:	include/linux/syscalls.h
>> +F:	include/uapi/
>> +F:	kernel/sys_ni.c
>> +
> 
> It'd be nice to have also sysfs changes covered as well if this is not 
> just about API, but also ABI; I am not sure whether this could be covered 
> by MAINTAINERS pattern, but at least mentioning this list in 
> Documentation/ABI/README seems appropriate.
> 

If sysfs is in, what about cgroupfs? Which has been under dramatic changes.

> (I am also wondering who is actually subsribed to the linux-api@ 
> mailinglist, given the low general awareness of its existance :) ).
> 

Maybe we should force all core deveopers to subscribe linux-api?