On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> As we all discussed at the Kernel Summit this past week, I said I would
> create a drivers/staging directory and start throwing lots of drivers
> that are not of "mergable" status into it.
>...
> The 3rd patch creates the drivers/staging/ directory and Kconfig entries
> and adds it to the build system.
>
> The 4th patch is an example of a driver that would go into this
> directory, along with a driver_name.README file detailing what needs to
> be done to this driver for cleanup/fixing, and who to contact about it.
> It's also in such bad shape it doesn't even build against the kernel
> kernel :)
>
> (I'll fix that up before submitting, all drivers should at least build
> properly...)
>
> So, does this all look good to everyone? Any questions/issues?
>
> Oh, I guess I should add a MAINTAINER entry for this section of the
> kernel, so to paraphrase Linus, I now get to be known as the "Maintainer
> of Crap".
Sorry for being late in the discussion, I'm currently catching up with
my email backlog.
What does that mean in practice for kernel development?
Will breaking crap be considered OK?
As an example, let's assume some crap drivers use the BKL in a way that
it might require the BKL in some core part of the kernel. Will the
person removing the BKL in the core part of the kernel be forced to fix
the locking of all possibly affected crap drivers no matter how broken
and undocumented it is, or can he simply ignore the crap and leave the
fixing to the Maintainer of Crap?
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:01:37AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > As we all discussed at the Kernel Summit this past week, I said I would
> > create a drivers/staging directory and start throwing lots of drivers
> > that are not of "mergable" status into it.
> >...
> > The 3rd patch creates the drivers/staging/ directory and Kconfig entries
> > and adds it to the build system.
> >
> > The 4th patch is an example of a driver that would go into this
> > directory, along with a driver_name.README file detailing what needs to
> > be done to this driver for cleanup/fixing, and who to contact about it.
> > It's also in such bad shape it doesn't even build against the kernel
> > kernel :)
> >
> > (I'll fix that up before submitting, all drivers should at least build
> > properly...)
> >
> > So, does this all look good to everyone? Any questions/issues?
> >
> > Oh, I guess I should add a MAINTAINER entry for this section of the
> > kernel, so to paraphrase Linus, I now get to be known as the "Maintainer
> > of Crap".
>
> Sorry for being late in the discussion, I'm currently catching up with
> my email backlog.
>
> What does that mean in practice for kernel development?
Nothing.
> Will breaking crap be considered OK?
Yes.
> As an example, let's assume some crap drivers use the BKL in a way that
> it might require the BKL in some core part of the kernel. Will the
> person removing the BKL in the core part of the kernel be forced to fix
> the locking of all possibly affected crap drivers no matter how broken
> and undocumented it is, or can he simply ignore the crap and leave the
> fixing to the Maintainer of Crap?
He can ignore the crap and leave the fixing to the Maintainer of Crap.
Although a short note to the Maintainer of Crap about the crap that
needs fixing in the tree of crap, would be polite, it is not required.
thanks,
greg "surrounded by crap" k-h
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:01:37 +0300
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > As we all discussed at the Kernel Summit this past week, I said I would
> > create a drivers/staging directory and start throwing lots of drivers
> > that are not of "mergable" status into it.
> >...
> > The 3rd patch creates the drivers/staging/ directory and Kconfig entries
> > and adds it to the build system.
> >
> > The 4th patch is an example of a driver that would go into this
> > directory, along with a driver_name.README file detailing what needs to
> > be done to this driver for cleanup/fixing, and who to contact about it.
> > It's also in such bad shape it doesn't even build against the kernel
> > kernel :)
> >
> > (I'll fix that up before submitting, all drivers should at least build
> > properly...)
> >
> > So, does this all look good to everyone? Any questions/issues?
> >
> > Oh, I guess I should add a MAINTAINER entry for this section of the
> > kernel, so to paraphrase Linus, I now get to be known as the "Maintainer
> > of Crap".
>
> Sorry for being late in the discussion, I'm currently catching up with
> my email backlog.
>
> What does that mean in practice for kernel development?
>
> Will breaking crap be considered OK?
>
> As an example, let's assume some crap drivers use the BKL in a way that
> it might require the BKL in some core part of the kernel. Will the
> person removing the BKL in the core part of the kernel be forced to fix
> the locking of all possibly affected crap drivers no matter how broken
> and undocumented it is, or can he simply ignore the crap and leave the
> fixing to the Maintainer of Crap?
>
<collapses in a hysterical seizure>
Every development tree right now will go out and breezily break random
other development trees with nary a care in the world.
What difference does one more tree make?