On Thu 10-06-21 16:55:46, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > > fanotify: add pidfd support to the fanotify API > > > > > > > This one looks mostly fine. Gave some minor comments. > > > > The biggest thing I am missing is a link to an LTP test draft and > > man page update draft. > > Fair point, the way I approached it was that I'd get the ACK from all of > you on the overall implementation and then go ahead with providing > additional things like LTP and man-pages drafts, before the merge is > performed. > > > In general, I think it is good practice to provide a test along with any > > fix, but for UAPI changes we need to hold higher standards - both the > > test and man page draft should be a must before merge IMO. > > Agree, moving forward I will take this approach. > > > We already know there is going to be a clause about FAN_NOPIDFD > > and so on... I think it is especially hard for people on linux-api list to > > review a UAPI change without seeing the contract in a user manual > > format. Yes, much of the information is in the commit message, but it > > is not the same thing as reading a user manual and verifying that the > > contract makes sense to a programmer. > > Makes sense. I agree with Amir that before your patches can get merged we need a manpage update & LTP coverage. But I fully understand your approach of trying to figure out how things will look like before writing the tests and manpage to save some adaptation of tests & doc as the code changes. For relatively simple changes like this one that approach is fine by me as well (for more complex API changes it's often easier to actually *start* with a manpage to get an idea where we are actually heading). I just want the tests & doc to be part of at least one submission so that e.g. people on linux-api have a good chance to review stuff without having to dive into code details. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
