Re: IOCTL documentation (was: Adding checkpointing API to Linux kernel)
Steven Roberts (strobert@ata-sd.com)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:32:41 -0800
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> > (hmmm... thinking I may have just voleentered :)
>
> It's a dandelion problem -- you pull on it, and you find a whole root
> system underneath it.
>
> The problem is: "how do you document an entity where hundreds of unrelated
> people check in code everywhere, and your desire for documentation
> exceeds the willingness of those hundreds of people to write it."
Yes, I realize it would be impossible to keep all of them documented,
but
I would think that at least the basic ioctl's (say for changing baud on
a serial port) would be fairly static and those the documentation would
stay correct
>
> When Linus decides he wants more documentation, he can make that a
> criterion for accepting a patch. He can lay out whatever rules he likes.
> My suggestion is: "if your code has an interface to userland, your patch
> must have a file in Documentation/ somewhere that documents the interface
> to userland."
>
I wouldn't be trying to have a completely inclusive set, just something
that would at least contain a bunch of them so at least most programmers
wouldn't have to dig.
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/