On 01/15/2015 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:06:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 15-01-15 13:39:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Most of our code has
>>> struct foo {
>>> }
>>>
>>> Fix two instances where balloon is inconsistent.
>>
>> I hate to complain but is it really necessary to post such patches to
>> linux-api?
>
> Well it's human to err, so it seems wise to copy parties
> interested in the ABI/API whenever we are changing files under include/uapi.
> Whitespace changes should mostly be safe, but it's not unknown
> e.g. to include unrelated changes in the same commit by mistake.
>
>> I thought the list was primarily for API related discussions.
>
> Basically this line in MAINTAINERS
>
> ABI/API
> L: linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> F: Documentation/ABI/
> F: include/linux/syscalls.h
> F: include/uapi/
> F: kernel/sys_ni.c
>
> normally means "send all patches affecting files under include/uapi/ to
> this list", does it not?
>
> Wasn't this the intent?
>
>> This is not the only mail sent here which doesn't fall into that
>> category IMO. It is far from low volume list for quite some time.
>>
>> Please let's get back low volume and API only discussion!
>
> Maybe send patch dropping include/uapi/ from there,
> should help drive the volumes down?
Well, regardless of what it technically means, there's always going
to be scope for ambiguity, and that's where we differ from computers:
we can ask ourselves the question: will other human beings interested
in the API/ABI care about this patch?
Thanks,
Michael (also saddened about increasing noise on linux-api)
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
