On 12/11/2023 11:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 06:02:59PM -0800, John Moon wrote:
One part of maintaining backwards compatibility with older
userspace programs is avoiding changes to module parameters.
Really? I don't think module parameters are a UAPI in the traditional
sense.
Agreed, they're not UAPI in the traditional sense. But, we're trying to
establish tooling to help the community stabilize all interfaces that
cross the kernel <-> userspace boundary and module params do fall into
that bucket.
Now if you break a heavily used one you got to fix it, but
applying strict stability guarantees on module options which are not
availble to normal users or even normal programs doesn't make a whole
lot of sense.
True, but unfortunately we don't have any heuristic to determine if a
param is "heavily used". However, in this rev, we added the ability to
parse the permissions of a module param, so we could add a filter which
does not flag change/removal of params with 0{0,4,6}000 permissions.
It's also obviously fine if the community has no interest in the script.
We just wanted to share it as we find it to be a useful supplement to
our code reviews and thought maintainers may find it useful as well.
Cheers,
John
