On 28.04.2023 10:14, George Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:12 AM George Dunlap <george.dun...@cloud.com> wrote: > It occurred to me that in many (most? all?) cases it would be more > effective to define the security support parameters in the > documentation itself.
I think I agree; the alternative of needing to look in two places (one telling the syntax, the other telling whether it's "legitimate" to use) would be prone to people omitting the 2nd step. And this isn't going to be meaningfully more work right now: Any option we don't mean to security-support won't need annotating, i.e. like in SUPPORT.md absence of an explicit statement would mean "not supported". While in the examples you list only command line options, I guess the same could apply to xl.cfg / xl.conf ones? Albeit I notice xl.cfg.5.pod.in in its title specifically says "syntax" right now, which then may want changing. For Kconfig items it's not as clear, because I wouldn't consider the various Kconfig files "documentation", yet I guess we shouldn't require people to look at source code. Jan
