Re: [PATCH 0/7] docs: consolidate sysfs-block into Documentation/ABI/

[Eric Biggers]

On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:05:39PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:32:45AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 12/1/21 12:45 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > This series consolidates the documentation for /sys/block/<disk>/queue/
> > > into Documentation/ABI/, where it is supposed to go (as per Greg KH:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/YaXXpEAwVGTLjp1e@xxxxxxxxx).
> > > 
> > > This series also updates MAINTAINERS to associate the block
> > > documentation with the block layer.
> > > 
> > > This series applies to linux-block/for-next.
> > > 
> > > Eric Biggers (7):
> > >    docs: sysfs-block: sort alphabetically
> > >    docs: sysfs-block: add contact for nomerges
> > >    docs: sysfs-block: fill in missing documentation from queue-sysfs.rst
> > >    docs: sysfs-block: document stable_writes
> > >    docs: sysfs-block: document virt_boundary_mask
> > >    docs: block: remove queue-sysfs.rst
> > >    MAINTAINERS: add entries for block layer documentation
> > > 
> > >   Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-block | 766 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> > >   Documentation/block/index.rst         |   1 -
> > >   Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.rst   | 321 -----------
> > >   MAINTAINERS                           |   2 +
> > >   4 files changed, 545 insertions(+), 545 deletions(-)
> > >   delete mode 100644 Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.rst
> > 
> > How about adding a patch that moves Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-block
> > to Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block? The block layer sysfs ABI is used
> > widely by user space software and is considered stable.
> > 
> 
> That would make sense.  I decided not to include it in this patch series since
> some of the sysfs-block files were added recently, so may not be as "stable" as
> ones that have been around for 18 years, and because about 90% of the sysfs
> documentation is in the "testing" directory anyway so it is not unusual.  So I
> felt it should be a separate change.
> 
> I think these patches should go in first, and then I can send a separate patch
> that moves the file to the stable directory, if there is no objection to it.
> 

Since no one has objected and this series hasn't been applied yet, I guess I'll
just go ahead and send out a new series which includes the renaming to stable.

- Eric