From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBFDF40DFA1 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 05:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776749354; cv=none; b=JeRjmTdcfnOKaP2U7SOgmoXh98wP/v1qEQeVLJPemT5AGGo60NfNn/2df6bjK3kfBpqAlmTP0JmT6Y6BHlTrtSgM+u7U37rnzmG12xVW+hSQu31FzUx30Ju5QaRTvDq+xo/ZoLTxGfNUuwAV332y/kEh1qRXs9RVbhV20G4GdMg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776749354; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eYq76CyVKkOwcyi+y1n09vcJC63lwI7TI6ab5yA+TFQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=X7p9Q9v177J0f5JkBRf8NFkJdbmP5mc/u/5tZG2wzcEvusr6F1fqdaHRKFiJmi8v0qikd6J5cT5ollhS2zd62OGK6Fmo+9tTuAOCwGWoq5ZiXELuS00cAocyozTahRcpHf0uNvfs0c9evaD1o2JG4pMVE6/3QE1TtvT6edTMSgA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ctB8n0qp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ctB8n0qp" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B4F2C2BCB0; Tue, 21 Apr 2026 05:29:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1776749354; bh=eYq76CyVKkOwcyi+y1n09vcJC63lwI7TI6ab5yA+TFQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ctB8n0qp9t4yE7S88O5eJIVapsTto0dT0mQO0o636GsxwWkCE4gr0RPr9UIskSuwc xI3kaaU5Rwod5+/SY9m6h7oEVhrh2olMKn3qoaPeyH200v2y4dZ4IHqO9Lg6E7M0y3 qKXF8hsvU1bH24RFUldOOTVxMt8p0ONXl0he1i3olpCSaVR4lqieH3NfyfQnpqL9NT 9N2xVmRfwEbEDvGQ4XuofMy5wi4IQdV9VHA9NyrN4Fiyece7CkGDSdZPOAVlUvob+z MPhR/4r+5IlA0FpsS270DE7CCs5RKDvRvOyOSw42l69ojKfMDY9p7Uo269Aa18l32C FVgtt5RD2jaVw== From: SeongJae Park To: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Cc: SeongJae Park , damon@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/usage: mark scheme filters sysfs dir as deprecated Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 22:29:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20260421052907.142847-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260421050414.6B856C2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 05:04:13 +0000 sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote: > Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s): > - [Low] Poor grammar and inappropriate terminology in the deprecation notice. > -- > > commit bd6da1d76d24f1b76f6957dd9993c899af48df43 > Author: SeongJae Park > > Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/usage: mark scheme filters sysfs dir as deprecated > > This commit updates the DAMON usage documentation to formally mark the > sysfs 'filters/' directory as deprecated. It recommends users migrate > to the 'core_filters/' and 'ops_filters/' directories instead. > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/usage.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/usage.rst > > index 534e1199cf091..4c222e956b100 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/usage.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/usage.rst > [ ... ] > > Use of ``filters`` directory can make expecting evaluation orders of given > > -filters with the files under directory bit confusing. Users are hence > > -recommended to use ``core_filters`` and ``ops_filters`` directories. The > > -``filters`` directory could be deprecated in future. > > +filters with the files under directory bit confusing. For the reason, > > +``filters`` directory is deprecated. It is still functioning, but it will be > > +broken and eventually removed in near future. Users should use > > +``core_filters`` and ``ops_filters`` directories instead. > > This isn't a bug, but could the phrasing here be smoothed out a bit? There > are a few awkward phrases like "make expecting evaluation orders" and "with > the files under directory bit confusing". > > Also, stating that a sysfs interface "will be broken" is generally avoided > in kernel documentation. The standard convention is to say that an interface > is "deprecated and scheduled for removal" to avoid implying that userspace > will be intentionally broken. > > Would a rewrite like this work better? > > "Using the ``filters`` directory can make the evaluation order of filters > confusing. For this reason, the ``filters`` directory is deprecated. It > continues to function for now, but is scheduled for removal in the near > future." Nice suggestion. I will apply that suggestion. Thanks, SJ [...]