Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/arch: Add kernel feature descriptions and arch support status under Documentation/features/ | From | Michael Ellerman <> | Date | Mon, 18 May 2015 11:37:13 +1000 |
| |
On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 09:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 12:38 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Add arch support matrices for more than 40 generic kernel features > > > > that need per architecture support. > > > > > > > > Each feature has its own directory under Documentation/features/feature_name/, > > > > and the arch-support.txt file shows its current arch porting status. > > > > > > It would be nice to provide people with commit IDs to look at, but the > > > IDs won't be known at the time the documentation file is created. We > > > could provide patch titles. > > > > +1 on patch titles. > > Ok, I'll solve this.
Thanks.
> > > But still, let's not overdo it - get something in there, see how > > > well it works, evolve it over time. > > > > > > I don't think we've heard from any (non-x86) arch maintainers? Do > > > they consider this useful at all? Poke. > > > > Yes it is. I have my own version I've cobbled together for powerpc, > > but this is much better. > > Please double check the PowerPC support matrix for correctness (if you > haven't yet):
It looks good except for:
> rwsem-optimized: | ok | Optimized asm/rwsem.h # arch provides optimized rwsem APIs
I don't see an rwsem.h in powerpc anywhere?
And this is correct but a bit confusing:
> irq-time-acct: | ok | HAVE_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING # arch supports precise IRQ time accounting
I think you and Paul agreed it's "ok" on powerpc because we have VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING instead, but that's not obvious.
> > I'd like to see more description in the individual files of what the > > feature is, and preferably some pointers to what's needed to > > implement it. > > Yeah, so I tried to add a short description to the feature file > itself, and for many of these features that single sentence is the > only documentation we have in the kernel source ...
Yep, so that's better than what we had, and we can always improve it.
cheers
| |