Re: [PATCH trivial] UAPI: Kbuild: add/modify comments for "uapi/Kbuild"and "uapi/linux/Kbuild"

[Chen Gang]

Hello Maintainers:

Is this patch suitable for applying ?  Does it belong to 'trivial' (or
'Documentation', or others) ?


And sorry for my original missing some important mail addresses when I
sent the original patch (I got them by "./scripts/get_maintainers", and
not give more considerations for them).

So I append my original patch below, if necessary, please help check
when you have time, thanks.


------------------------------patch begin-------------------------------

"include/uapi/" is the whole Linux kernel API, it is important enough
to get more global explanations by comments.

In "include/uapi/Kbuild", "Makefile..." and "non-arch..." comments are
meaningless for current 'Kbuild', so delete them.

And add more explanations for "include/uapi/" in "include/uapi/Kbuild",
also add more explanations for "include/uapi/linux/" in "include/uapi
/linux/Kbuild".


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 include/uapi/Kbuild       |    5 ++---
 include/uapi/linux/Kbuild |    2 ++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/uapi/Kbuild b/include/uapi/Kbuild
index 81d2106..c682891 100644
--- a/include/uapi/Kbuild
+++ b/include/uapi/Kbuild
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
 # UAPI Header export list
-# Top-level Makefile calls into asm-$(ARCH)
-# List only non-arch directories below
-
+# Except "linux/", UAPI means Universal API.
+# For "linux/", UAPI means User API which can be used by user mode.

 header-y += asm-generic/
 header-y += linux/
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild b/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild
index 997f9f2..0025e07 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild
@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
 # UAPI Header export list
+# UAPI is User API which can be used by user mode.
+
 header-y += byteorder/
 header-y += can/
 header-y += caif/
-- 
1.7.7.6

------------------------------patch end---------------------------------


Thanks.


On 08/21/2013 02:34 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hello all:
> 
> According to the reply of yours, it seems we need more 'work' for the
> API related documents.  If really it is, I need change my 'work' way
> for it.
> 
> Currently, my 'work' way is "finding and solving issues", which may be
> efficient for 'grow up' sub-systems (e.g. "kernel/" sub-system).
> 
> But for the sub-systems which are lack of main contents (or too many
> issues to solve), I think the efficient way is "get 'tasks' from the
> related maintainers and finish 'tasks' one by one".
> 
> If the related maintainers agree with me, they can send 'tasks' to me,
> and I am glad to finish them one by one.
> 
> 
> Reason (why I am glad to do it):
> 
>   1. The API related documents are really important for us, and currently need more 'work'.
>   2. 'getting tasks' is an efficient way for it.
>   3. it is additional good chance to me for English training (I should do additional trying to improve my English).
> 
> 
> Limitations (my resources):
> 
>   1. finish one API document related task per month (excuse me, I have no additional time resources for it).
>   2. my English is not quite well, it may have negative effect with the efficiency.
>   3. sometimes, I can not connect to net, which may not give response in time.
> 
>      e.g. recently, 2013-08-08 -- 2013-08-19, but I may still can 'work' for it (queue patches and waiting the network OK).
> 
> 
> BTW: I also can try the English-Chinese translations tasks. ;-)
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> On 08/08/2013 10:13 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hello Rob:
>>
>> Maybe I misunderstand what you said (if so, I am sorry for it).
>>
>> At least for me, what you said is valuable to get additional discussion,
>> but it seems better to start a new thread for it and also cc to
>> linux-doc mail list.
>>
>> If so better include me in cc list, thanks.  ;-)
>>
>> If you think still suitable to discuss about it in this mail thread,
>> please continue, at least, I still welcome.  :-)
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On 08/07/2013 04:48 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2013 03:32 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>>>> On 08/06/2013 12:31:43 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 09:46 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>>> "include/uapi/" is the whole Linux kernel API, it is important enough
>>>>>> to get more global explanations by comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'd probably be useful to have more descriptions
>>>>> of uapi in the Documentation directory too.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather have comments in the headers that get exported to userspace
>>>> and then have other forms of documentation generated from that by some
>>>> process similar to "make htmldocs". Otherwise you've got two places to
>>>> keep in sync.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least for me, it is a good idea, although UAPI files is rarely
>>> changed (may add new item, but few modifying the existing items).
>>>
>>> And for our case, it is summary comments for directory organization for
>>> all UAPI files, so in my opinion, it is still necessary to give summary
>>> comments in Kbuild.
>>>
>>> In Linux user mode or another OS which share the same files of UAPI,
>>> they do not care about our kernel's Kbuild, for they have their own
>>> directory organizations which may different with Linux kernel's.
>>>
>>>> (Really the guy you've got to keep in the loop about this is Michael
>>>> Kerrisk. The section 2 man pages are the current best reference on UAPI
>>>> stuff...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, the section 2 man pages is already for it (e.g. man 2
>>> setfuid, man 2 open, ...).
>>>
>>> Do you mean currently it is only for some of system calls (part of
>>> UAPI), not for the whole UAPI ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/