On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:42:27 +0100 Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is a non-back-compatible userspace interface change. A procfs > > file which previously displayed > > > > eventfd-count: nnnn > > > > can now also display > > > > eventfd-mask: nnnn > > > > So existing userspace could misbehave. > > > > Please fully describe the proposed interface change in the changelog. > > That description should include the full pathname of the procfs file > > and example before-and-after output and a discussion of whether and why > > the risk to existing userspace is acceptable. > > I am not sure what the policy is here. Is not printing out the state of > the object acceptable way to maintain backward compatibility? If not so, > does new type of object require new procfs file, which, AFAIU, is the > only way to retain full backward compatibility? Adding a new file is the only way I can think of to preserve the API. But from Andy's comment is sounds like we don't have to worry a lot about back-compatibility. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
