> Hi, > > On 11/17/20 9:42 PM, Justin Ernst wrote: > > Introduce a new platform driver to gather topology information from UV systems > > and expose that information via a sysfs interface at /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/. > > > > Justin Ernst (5): > > x86/platform/uv: Remove existing /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/ interface > > x86/platform/uv: Add and export uv_bios_* functions > > x86/platform/uv: Add new uv_sysfs platform driver > > x86/platform/uv: Update ABI documentation of /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/ > > x86/platform/uv: Update MAINTAINERS for uv_sysfs driver > > So patch 1/1 drops the existing > > /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/coherence_id > /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/partition_id > > sysfs API, then according to patch 4/5 patch 3/5 reintroduces > the /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/partition_id API, but the /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/coherence_id > file is gone for ever ? > > I'm not sure what userspace bits (may) depend on this but without more info > this looks like a clear violation of the do not break userspace APIs rule. > > So, based on this, I have to nack this series in its current state. > > Now if there is a strong believe there are 0 (not a few, but _zero_) users > out there who rely on the /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/coherence_id file then this > might be ok. But then there needs to be a technical analysis of why this is > ok in the commit message of the patch dropping this sysfs file. > > Also the commit message of patch 1/5 should mention that > /sys/firmware/sgi_uv/partition_id will be re-introduced later through > another driver. Hello Hans, I will resubmit these patches without the API breakage, reintroducing the coherence_id file in the new driver. Thank you for taking the time to look over my patch set. > > Regards, > > Hans
