On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:32:40PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 10-06-21 16:55:46, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > > 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. Sure, that's not a problem. I'll get the LTP and man-pages patches also prepared and send references through to them as part of the next version of this series. Thanks for all the suggestions and review! /M
