On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:09:28 +0100 Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Steven Rostedt writes: > >On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:52:58 +0100 > >Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> The policy, as with all debugfs APIs by default, is that it's completely > >> unstable and there are no API stability guarantees whatsoever. That's why > >> there's no extensive documentation for users: because this is a feature for > >> kernel developers. > >> > >> 0: https://lwn.net/Articles/309298/ > > > >That article you reference states the opposite of what you said. And I got > >burnt by it before. Because Linus stated, if it is available for users, it > >is an ABI. > > Hmm, even in 2011 after that article there were discussions about debugfs > explicitly being the "wild west"[0], no? I heard the same during LSFMM > discussions during recent years as well. Although I confess that I am not > frequently in discussions about debugfs so I don't really know where the > majority opinion is nowadays. There isn't a majority opinion on this. There's only one opinion, and that's Linus's ;-) -- Steve > > Either way, as discussed the contents wouldn't be the ABI (as with my > /proc/self/smaps allusion), the file format would be, so it wouldn't imply that > printk() calls themselves or their locations become an ABI. > > 0: https://lwn.net/Articles/429321/
