Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] doc, xen: document hypervisor sysfs nodes for xen

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/22/2017 10:20 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 22/05/17 15:30, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 05/22/2017 04:56 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Today only a few sysfs nodes under /sys/hypervisor/ are documented
>>> for Xen in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu. Rename
>>> this file to Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor and add
>>> descriptions of the other nodes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor     | 131 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu |  23 -----
>>>  MAINTAINERS                                    |   1 +
>>>  3 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor
>>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor-pmu
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor 
>>> b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-hypervisor
>> I wonder whether at least some of the non-pmu entries should by now be
>> considered stable.
> Hmm, do you think the pmu entries are not?

Given XSA-163 I don't think we can declare PMU stable.

>
> I could:
>
> a) move sysfs-hypervisor as posted here to stable
> b) leave the pmu entries in testing and just add another doc for
>    the non-pmu entries in stable
> c) do some split of the non-pmu entries (which to put where?)
> d) or let it all in testing

I'd say (b).

>
> Next question then: where to put the new guest_type of patch 2?

Since this is just being added testing/sysfs-hypervisor seems to be the
proper place. Especially with documentation suggesting that 2-year
back-compatibility is needed for an interface to be declared stable.

-boris


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel