From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org C0BF780D18 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 5BD6880BD2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1682374108; x=1684966108; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=zh/fMVXEy/p80NSjVlrYa0mXRDr2h0FO6hsq5CtXg2M=; b=U8WDTr5sOlNki+xImOiBT+SbmEbKLNcSJOjygVaEWZeUJGOtSuCtLZFnT6TR90jW8a DVF7QEGW32zuyR4Nw7uVKP5H+pN9+Xv18FvnKNRBsae31njlZgMot10OOi3m2++3CTqM AdnixvthVDI9MRyeGYNgsF5nu4rPJKaqCb1Ph5PP7Kfeh5creb47rVyuzZOx+qvY2fZj N8zrbQJXWFM5IV3lG1c03Asowtpoqxm/iMXbsa0p55ciJJ4m/D0bkvZkRpTai5C5nEBt OOibxE3Yk7B67mpoZPvrpQyIahwcvWbv8mmvZz/bO+nBPLXpnKm8E/3OiCsEdFxGVmZR kz9A== Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:08:25 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger Message-ID: <20230424150825.051f4b4a@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20230424142800.3d519650@kernel.org> References: <20230424142800.3d519650@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [Question] Any plan to write/update the bridge doc? List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Nikolay Aleksandrov , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ido Schimmel , Hangbin Liu , Roopa Prabhu On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:28:00 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:25:08 +0800 Hangbin Liu wrote: > > Maybe someone already has asked. The only official Linux bridge document I > > got is a very ancient wiki page[1] or the ip link man page[2][3]. As there are > > many bridge stp/vlan/multicast paramegers. Should we add a detailed kernel > > document about each parameter? The parameter showed in ip link page seems > > a little brief. > > > > I'd like to help do this work. But apparently neither my English nor my > > understanding of the code is good enough. Anyway, if you want, I can help > > write a draft version first and you (bridge maintainers) keep working on this. > > > > [1] https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/networking/bridge > > [2] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/bridge.8.html > > [3] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/ip-link.8.html > > Sounds like we have 2 votes for the CLI man pages but I'd like to > register a vote for in-kernel documentation. > > I work at a large company so my perspective may differ but from what > I see: > > - users who want to call the kernel API should not have to look at > the CLI's man Internal Kernel API's are not stable. So documentation is only the auto generated kernel docs. There is an effort to cover netlink API's with YAML. Bridge could/should be part of that. > - man pages use archaic and arcane markup, I'd like to know how many > people actually know how it works and how many copy / paste / look; > ReST is prevalent, simple and commonly understood Yes, but that is what distributions want. > - in-kernel docs are rendered on the web as soon as they hit linux-next > - we can make sure documentation is provided with the kernel changes, > in an ideal world it doesn't matter but in practice the CLI support > may never happen (no to mention that iproute does not hold all CLI) > > Obviously if Stephen and Ido prefer to document the bridge CLI that's > perfectly fine, it's their call :) For new sections of uAPI, however, > I personally find in-kernel docs superior. The in-kernel documents usually only cover the architecture and motivation. What/why/how... Not the user visible public API's.