From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B546C47094 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E62613FE for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230136AbhFJLei (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:34:38 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:33118 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229895AbhFJLeh (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:34:37 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40F61FD37; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:32:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1623324760; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L2NY1RK73Mi1SPQVBj3a28xUb0JqOZGt3Jc1mtmQGlc=; b=UmDrl/tHuueBHtYY4sk3Dq5T8erLcH3trL8yve+s/hgOoGcKZYOGYjxdf2bQvV0BnwWuXP rDnJVUIxjH7nW9BCVzQICJREjMUY+4xAmOfhRgncl6VTKjQTKzUY7+HT2If1hBVFeV0gtE VyQ8r65WHL2Zo+YygN7z+gecBo7vyOs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1623324760; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L2NY1RK73Mi1SPQVBj3a28xUb0JqOZGt3Jc1mtmQGlc=; b=QUvYS8suwQAyhAIu/e9A3KlcQMuU6r1LSO2PQDeA0wzhUJH3XokBVrDEpa2sSJ1AqizOBw s3EhfzXDXA7oYJDg== Received: from quack2.suse.cz (unknown [10.100.200.198]) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71EFA3B8E; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 978661F2CAB; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:32:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:32:40 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Matthew Bobrowski Cc: Amir Goldstein , Jan Kara , Christian Brauner , linux-fsdevel , Linux API Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add pidfd support to the fanotify API Message-ID: <20210610113240.GC23539@quack2.suse.cz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu 10-06-21 16:55:46, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > > fanotify: add pidfd support to the fanotify API > > > > > > > This one looks mostly fine. Gave some minor comments. > > > > The biggest thing I am missing is a link to an LTP test draft and > > man page update draft. > > Fair point, the way I approached it was that I'd get the ACK from all of > you on the overall implementation and then go ahead with providing > additional things like LTP and man-pages drafts, before the merge is > performed. > > > In general, I think it is good practice to provide a test along with any > > fix, but for UAPI changes we need to hold higher standards - both the > > test and man page draft should be a must before merge IMO. > > Agree, moving forward I will take this approach. > > > We already know there is going to be a clause about FAN_NOPIDFD > > and so on... I think it is especially hard for people on linux-api list to > > review a UAPI change without seeing the contract in a user manual > > format. Yes, much of the information is in the commit message, but it > > is not the same thing as reading a user manual and verifying that the > > contract makes sense to a programmer. > > Makes sense. I agree with Amir that before your patches can get merged we need a manpage update & LTP coverage. But I fully understand your approach of trying to figure out how things will look like before writing the tests and manpage to save some adaptation of tests & doc as the code changes. For relatively simple changes like this one that approach is fine by me as well (for more complex API changes it's often easier to actually *start* with a manpage to get an idea where we are actually heading). I just want the tests & doc to be part of at least one submission so that e.g. people on linux-api have a good chance to review stuff without having to dive into code details. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR