Re: Test harness in the kernel for new syscalls? [Was: Trace code and documentation (updated)]

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: lkml <linux-kernel@...>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...>, David Wilder <dwilder@...>, Andi Kleen <andi@...>, <akpm@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Date: Friday, September 21, 2007 - 2:33 am

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:50:42 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:



I began looking into this.

Yes, we should add Makefile(s) so that sample code can be built.
Does that mean that it has to be moved to a different directory?

For some (not all) sample code, we either move its related txt or
README file to the samples/ dir also, or we create the need to
look in 2 places to see the sample code + related doc.

The latter is not good, so I suppose that we move those related
txt files with the sample code.  Then we have docs split into
2 places (not counting drivers/ and fs/ .txt files & other README*
files throughout the kernel tree).  Having docs split into more
places isn't good either.

I'm for just add Makefile(s) in the Documentation/ tree so that
sample code can be built there (as well as moving the sample
code out of .txt files and into standalone source files).


I'll back up and re-read where this (new) requirement is coming
from.

[reads]

It seems to mostly be about having the ability to build the sample
code so that it doesn't bitrot.  That's good.  But docs and sample
code are often very related.  I don't see why we would arbitrarily
split them up.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), David J. Wilder, (Wed Sep 19, 12:46 am)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Sep 23, 8:46 am)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), David Wilder, (Mon Sep 24, 11:16 am)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), David Wilder, (Wed Sep 19, 10:14 am)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Sep 19, 12:20 pm)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Randy Dunlap, (Wed Sep 19, 12:52 pm)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), David Wilder, (Wed Sep 19, 1:41 pm)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Sep 19, 12:55 pm)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Sam Ravnborg, (Wed Sep 19, 1:48 pm)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Sep 19, 1:51 pm)
Re: Test harness in the kernel for new syscalls? [Was: Trace..., Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Sep 21, 4:08 am)
Re: Test harness in the kernel for new syscalls? [Was: Trace..., Randy Dunlap, (Fri Sep 21, 2:33 am)
Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (updated), Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 11:38 am)