On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:58 AM John Moon <quic_johmoo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
I am with Christoph.
This tool detects some changes and removals, but I think
the community intentionally changed them.
To merge this tool in the mainline,
I need more people who are interested in this.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
