From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C61198C for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A38ACB for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:14:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:14:44 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Greg KH Message-ID: <20170804171444.gv7ev6zhkj3bzf5u@thunk.org> References: <20170804022639.p27oliuinqqatar2@thunk.org> <20170804160454.GC13098@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170804160454.GC13098@kroah.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] ABI feature gates? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 09:04:54AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > We could start searching linux-next for new additions of sysfs files > (search for the ATTR macros), and complain that there are no matching > Documentation/ABI/ updates at the same time. I try to do that when > reviewing patches that come through my trees, but yes, this is hard to > keep up to date with. > > Sounds like a good GSoC project though, setting up the infrastructure to > do this in a semi-automated fashion. This sounds like an obvious thing to add to checkpatch? - Ted