Re: [PATCH v2] docs: specify stability of hypfs path documentation

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 16.07.20 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.07.2020 16:37, George Dunlap wrote:
> > IT sounds like you’re saying:
> >
> > 1. Paths listed without conditions will always be available
> >
> > 2. Paths listed with conditions may be extended: i.e., a node currently listed 
> > as PV might also become available for HVM guests
> >
> > 3. Paths listed with conditions might have those conditions reduced, but will never 
> > entirely disappear.  So something currently listed as PV might be reduced to 
> > CONFIG_HAS_FOO, but won’t be completely removed.
> >
> > Is that what you meant?
> I see Jürgen replied "yes" to this, but I'm not sure about 1.
> above: I think it's quite reasonable to expect that paths without
> condition may gain a condition. Just like paths now having a
> condition and (perhaps temporarily) losing it shouldn't all of
> the sudden become "always available" when they weren't meant to
> be.
>
> As far a 3. goes, I'm also unsure in how far this is any better
> stability wise (from a consumer pov) than allowing paths to
> entirely disappear.
The idea is that any user tool using hypfs can rely on paths under 1 to
exist, while the ones under 3 might not be there due to the hypervisor
config or the used system.

A path not being allowed to entirely disappear ensures that it remains
in the documentation, so the same path can't be reused for something
different in future.


Juergen