Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
In a long and meandering thread with some of the other kernel developers
a week or so ago, it came up that there is no single place for companies
and developers to put their code for testing while it gets cleaned up
for submission into the kernel tree. All of the different subsystems
have trees, but they generally only want code that is about to go into
this release, or the next one. For stuff that is farther off, there is
no place to go.
So, here's the tree for it. From the README:
PURPOSE
The linux-staging tree was created to hold drivers and filesystems and
other semi-major additions to the Linux kernel that are not ready to be
merged at this point in time. It is here for companies and authors to
get a wider range of testing, and to allow for other members of the
community to help with the development of these features for the
eventual inclusion into the main kernel tree.
This tree will be included in the daily linux-next builds, and will get
testing by all users of that tree.
The rules of what can be included here is as follows:
- the code must be released under a Linux kernel-compatible
license
- the goal of the developers must be to merge this code into the
main kernel tree in the near future, but not for the next
kernel release.
- the code must build properly on the x86 platform
- this is not a tree for bugfixes or rewrites of existing kernel
code, this should be for new features, drivers, and
filesystems.
- the patches included must detail exactly what is needed to be
completed in order for them to be included into the main
kernel tree.
- there must be some email address associated with the patch
that can be used for bug reporting and questions about
cleanups and testing the code.
What this tree is not:
- it is not a place to dump features that are being actively
developed by a community of people (reiserfs4 for example.)
- it is not a place to dump code and then run away, hoping that
someone else will do the cleanup work for you. While there
are developers available to do this kind of work, you need to
get someone to agree to "babysit" the code.
I'll follow up this message with a list of the current status of the
individual patches and what is currently contained in the tree. I hope
to release a status like this every week or so, depending on how the
development goes.
What I need from all of you:
Kernel Janitors:
Here is the perfect way to get involved. The code in this tree
is in desparate need of cleanups and fixes that can be trivially
found using 'sparse' and 'scripts/checkpatch.pl'. I'll gladly
take these kinds of patches and of course, correctly credit you.
Linux driver project developers:
Same as above, here's a great place to start out helping with
real code. If any of you wants to take any of these drivers
over and become the primary contact point for them, just let me
know.
Linux-next developers:
Stephen, I would really like this tree to be included in -next.
Yes, I know it contains things that will not be included in the
next release, but the inclusion and basic build testing that is
provided by your tree is invaluable. You can place it at the
end, and if there is even a whiff of a problem in any of the
patches, you have my full permission to drop them on the floor
and run away screaming (and let me know please, so I can fix it
up.)
Linux kernel developers:
If there are any external patches floating around for drivers
that need to be cleaned up and gotten into the kernel tree,
please point them out to me and I'll be glad to add them to this
tree and work to get them included. Right now we are pushing:
- 192 files changed, 131073 insertions(+), 651 deletions(-)
so what's a few more thousand lines of code :)
Any questions? Comments?
thanks,
greg k-h
Here is a list of the current patches in the linux-staging tree, and
their current status.
- 17 patches
- 192 files changed, 131073 insertions(+), 651 deletions(-)
---------
Patch: aectc: add the aectc driver
Contact: Brandon Philips <[email protected]>
Status:
Being reworked to use the UIO interface instead of char driver
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: DVB: add firesat driver
Contact: Manu Abraham <[email protected]> and Greg KH <[email protected]>
Status:
Currently waiting for more DVB tuner development to finish off the
remaining features. Will be submitted to the DVB developers for
inclusion in the kernel tree soon, as waiting for that effort might be
a while.
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: Framebuffer: add the VIA framebuffer driver
Contact: Benjamin Pan <[email protected]> and Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: Input: add appleir driver
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
looks like this is not needed at all, but still need to determine the
proper HID quirk.
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: me4000: add pci data collection driver
Patch: me4000 firmware file
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: NET: add Alacritech slicoss driver
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: NET: add et131x driver
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: novfs: Add the Novell filesystem client kernel module
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: OMS: add OMS MAXp driver
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: USB: add USB test and measurement class drive
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
many TODOs still left to finish (see patch for details)
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: USB: add option HSO driver
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
Minor bugfixes waiting to be merged in
will be resubmited to the netdev list afterward
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
Patch: USB: add Sensoray 2255 v4l driver
Contact: Dean Anderson <[email protected]> and Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
review cycle cleanup already happened, will be resubmitted to v4l
developers shortly.
---------
Patch: via agp driver (3 patches)
Contact: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Status:
Still waiting for VIA to produce their xorg driver
portions have already gone into the drm and agp tree
Part of the linuxdriverproject.org development effort.
---------
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:05:40PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> PURPOSE
>
> The linux-staging tree was created to hold drivers and filesystems and
> other semi-major additions to the Linux kernel that are not ready to be
> merged at this point in time. It is here for companies and authors to
> get a wider range of testing, and to allow for other members of the
> community to help with the development of these features for the
> eventual inclusion into the main kernel tree.
>
> This tree will be included in the daily linux-next builds, and will get
> testing by all users of that tree.
Does this mean that the nature of linux-next is changing? I thought
the whole point of linux-next was only to have what would be pushed to
Linus in the near future, so we could check for patch compatibility
issues. For that reason, for example, I don't push the unstable set
of patches in the ext4 tree to linux-next, since they aren't ready for
merging yet in their current form.
But if linux-staging is going to be pushed to linux-next, doesn't that
violate the ground rules of Linux-next? Or are we allowing in this
case because these are filesystems and/or device drivers that don't
exist at all in the mainline tree yet?
- Ted
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 06:52:22PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:05:40PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > PURPOSE
> >
> > The linux-staging tree was created to hold drivers and filesystems and
> > other semi-major additions to the Linux kernel that are not ready to be
> > merged at this point in time. It is here for companies and authors to
> > get a wider range of testing, and to allow for other members of the
> > community to help with the development of these features for the
> > eventual inclusion into the main kernel tree.
> >
> > This tree will be included in the daily linux-next builds, and will get
> > testing by all users of that tree.
>
> Does this mean that the nature of linux-next is changing? I thought
> the whole point of linux-next was only to have what would be pushed to
> Linus in the near future, so we could check for patch compatibility
> issues. For that reason, for example, I don't push the unstable set
> of patches in the ext4 tree to linux-next, since they aren't ready for
> merging yet in their current form.
>
> But if linux-staging is going to be pushed to linux-next, doesn't that
> violate the ground rules of Linux-next? Or are we allowing in this
> case because these are filesystems and/or device drivers that don't
> exist at all in the mainline tree yet?
I'm asking for the rule to be bent for this tree, not that the whole
nature of linux-next is changing.
-staging is for only whole new drivers/filesystems, not changes/features
to existing code that is not yet ready for merging. The main reason
these drivers are not in mainline is usually:
- coding style issues
- sparse cleanups needed
- ioctl 32/64 cleanups
- locking review
- direct access to hardware through memory pointers (only works
on x86)
If you look at what I currently have, there's nothing earth-shattering
there, but there is stuff that users can use to get hardware to work
that currently is not supported on kernel.org kernels at all.
It would be nice if distros also pick it up if they want to support
these devices and give me some feedback. There are 2 big network
drivers in there that support a wide range of devices that some people
would like to see working :)
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
>
> Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
> a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
>
>
> In a long and meandering thread with some of the other kernel developers
> a week or so ago, it came up that there is no single place for companies
> and developers to put their code for testing while it gets cleaned up
> for submission into the kernel tree. All of the different subsystems
> have trees, but they generally only want code that is about to go into
> this release, or the next one. For stuff that is farther off, there is
> no place to go.
That's great. I started working on the test and measurement class
driver. Do you want me to send preliminary patches or just the final
one ?
--
Best Regards,
Felipe Balbi
[email protected]
Hi.
Would you consider including TuxOnIce in it?
I do still want to get it merged and would appreciate feedback.
Regards,
Nigel
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:07:30AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
> >
> > Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
> > a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
> >
> >
> > In a long and meandering thread with some of the other kernel developers
> > a week or so ago, it came up that there is no single place for companies
> > and developers to put their code for testing while it gets cleaned up
> > for submission into the kernel tree. All of the different subsystems
> > have trees, but they generally only want code that is about to go into
> > this release, or the next one. For stuff that is farther off, there is
> > no place to go.
>
> That's great. I started working on the test and measurement class
> driver. Do you want me to send preliminary patches or just the final
> one ?
I'll take whatever you have, prelim patches is nice if you are at a
stopping point and want to make sure I get them applied :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:05:46AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Would you consider including TuxOnIce in it?
>
> I do still want to get it merged and would appreciate feedback.
Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like
a new driver or filesystem would?
If not, I don't think it is relevant. Odds are you want to be your own
series of patches, like we discussed years ago, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg.
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 20:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:05:46AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Would you consider including TuxOnIce in it?
> >
> > I do still want to get it merged and would appreciate feedback.
>
> Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like
> a new driver or filesystem would?
The patch I distribute now does have a few parts to it that could be
separated into distinct patches (cryptoapi LZF support, fuse freezer
support), but the bulk of it is TuxOnIce itself, which just adds new
files and inserts the hooks necessary to share the lowlevel code with
[u]swsusp. I think, therefore, it would akin to adding a new driver or
filesystem.
> If not, I don't think it is relevant. Odds are you want to be your own
> series of patches, like we discussed years ago, right?
I don't think I do want to have my own series of patches, because
TuxOnIce doesn't remove or rework swsusp or uswsusp, but sits along side
them. I'm not trying to mutate swsusp into TuxOnIce, because that would
require a complete rework of swsusp from the ground up (TuxOnIce does
everything but the atomic copy/restore and associated prep/cleanup
differently).
Regards,
Nigel
Hi again.
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 20:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like
> a new driver or filesystem would?
Just another thought - I should have said that I don't really know what
patches to add a new driver or filesystem look like. I can only imagine
a filesystem going in all-in-one-patch, so I'd probably appreciate an
example/template to work off, as might others.
Regards,
Nigel
Greg,
The OSD initiator (see
http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=open-osd.git;a=summary)
looks in principle like a great fit for linux-staging.
What would be the mechanics of including it?
Benny
On Jun. 10, 2008, 22:05 +0300, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
>
> Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
> a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
>
>
> In a long and meandering thread with some of the other kernel developers
> a week or so ago, it came up that there is no single place for companies
> and developers to put their code for testing while it gets cleaned up
> for submission into the kernel tree. All of the different subsystems
> have trees, but they generally only want code that is about to go into
> this release, or the next one. For stuff that is farther off, there is
> no place to go.
>
> So, here's the tree for it. From the README:
>
> PURPOSE
>
> The linux-staging tree was created to hold drivers and filesystems and
> other semi-major additions to the Linux kernel that are not ready to be
> merged at this point in time. It is here for companies and authors to
> get a wider range of testing, and to allow for other members of the
> community to help with the development of these features for the
> eventual inclusion into the main kernel tree.
>
> This tree will be included in the daily linux-next builds, and will get
> testing by all users of that tree.
>
> The rules of what can be included here is as follows:
> - the code must be released under a Linux kernel-compatible
> license
> - the goal of the developers must be to merge this code into the
> main kernel tree in the near future, but not for the next
> kernel release.
> - the code must build properly on the x86 platform
> - this is not a tree for bugfixes or rewrites of existing kernel
> code, this should be for new features, drivers, and
> filesystems.
> - the patches included must detail exactly what is needed to be
> completed in order for them to be included into the main
> kernel tree.
> - there must be some email address associated with the patch
> that can be used for bug reporting and questions about
> cleanups and testing the code.
>
> What this tree is not:
> - it is not a place to dump features that are being actively
> developed by a community of people (reiserfs4 for example.)
> - it is not a place to dump code and then run away, hoping that
> someone else will do the cleanup work for you. While there
> are developers available to do this kind of work, you need to
> get someone to agree to "babysit" the code.
>
>
> I'll follow up this message with a list of the current status of the
> individual patches and what is currently contained in the tree. I hope
> to release a status like this every week or so, depending on how the
> development goes.
>
> What I need from all of you:
> Kernel Janitors:
> Here is the perfect way to get involved. The code in this tree
> is in desparate need of cleanups and fixes that can be trivially
> found using 'sparse' and 'scripts/checkpatch.pl'. I'll gladly
> take these kinds of patches and of course, correctly credit you.
>
> Linux driver project developers:
> Same as above, here's a great place to start out helping with
> real code. If any of you wants to take any of these drivers
> over and become the primary contact point for them, just let me
> know.
>
> Linux-next developers:
> Stephen, I would really like this tree to be included in -next.
> Yes, I know it contains things that will not be included in the
> next release, but the inclusion and basic build testing that is
> provided by your tree is invaluable. You can place it at the
> end, and if there is even a whiff of a problem in any of the
> patches, you have my full permission to drop them on the floor
> and run away screaming (and let me know please, so I can fix it
> up.)
>
> Linux kernel developers:
> If there are any external patches floating around for drivers
> that need to be cleaned up and gotten into the kernel tree,
> please point them out to me and I'll be glad to add them to this
> tree and work to get them included. Right now we are pushing:
> - 192 files changed, 131073 insertions(+), 651 deletions(-)
> so what's a few more thousand lines of code :)
>
> Any questions? Comments?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Benny Halevy wrote:
> Greg,
>
> The OSD initiator (see
> http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=open-osd.git;a=summary)
> looks in principle like a great fit for linux-staging.
>
The patches are not yet there, Benny. They are currently
out-of-tree here:
http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=osd-lib.git;a=summary
It will take me until end of next week to separate them into
a consumable patchset. Which will also move them in-tree.
> What would be the mechanics of including it?
>
I want to send them to linux-scsi-ml and also To: Greg KH
Requesting to be included in "linux-staging tree". Is that
sufficient?
> Benny
>
Boaz
> On Jun. 10, 2008, 22:05 +0300, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
>>
>> Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
>> a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
>>
>>
<snip>
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to send them to linux-scsi-ml and also To: Greg KH
> Requesting to be included in "linux-staging tree". Is that
> sufficient?
just don't forget to add copyright notes in all files :-)--
Best Regards,
Felipe Balbi
[email protected]
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> This tree will be included in the daily linux-next builds, and will get
> testing by all users of that tree.
>
> The rules of what can be included here is as follows:
> - the code must be released under a Linux kernel-compatible
> license
> - the goal of the developers must be to merge this code into the
> main kernel tree in the near future, but not for the next
> kernel release.
> - the code must build properly on the x86 platform
> - this is not a tree for bugfixes or rewrites of existing kernel
> code, this should be for new features, drivers, and
> filesystems.
> - the patches included must detail exactly what is needed to be
> completed in order for them to be included into the main
> kernel tree.
> - there must be some email address associated with the patch
> that can be used for bug reporting and questions about
> cleanups and testing the code.
>
> What this tree is not:
> - it is not a place to dump features that are being actively
> developed by a community of people (reiserfs4 for example.)
> - it is not a place to dump code and then run away, hoping that
> someone else will do the cleanup work for you. While there
> are developers available to do this kind of work, you need to
> get someone to agree to "babysit" the code.
Would the linux-staging tree be an appropriate place to merge a new
architecture? Or would that be too large a change and should go via
its own tree?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:03:45PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 20:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like
> > a new driver or filesystem would?
>
> Just another thought - I should have said that I don't really know what
> patches to add a new driver or filesystem look like. I can only imagine
> a filesystem going in all-in-one-patch, so I'd probably appreciate an
> example/template to work off, as might others.
If you look in the -staging tree, there are 17 "template/example"
patches in there to go off of :)
Basically, one patch per feature. It sounds like the tuxonice is much
too big for this kind of thing.
Just respin your patches and post them to lkml for review. You should
be able to set up your own tree for inclusion in linux-next if they are
ready to go in.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi Greg.
>
> On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 20:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:05:46AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Would you consider including TuxOnIce in it?
> > >
> > > I do still want to get it merged and would appreciate feedback.
> >
> > Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like
> > a new driver or filesystem would?
>
> The patch I distribute now does have a few parts to it that could be
> separated into distinct patches (cryptoapi LZF support, fuse freezer
> support), but the bulk of it is TuxOnIce itself, which just adds new
> files and inserts the hooks necessary to share the lowlevel code with
> [u]swsusp. I think, therefore, it would akin to adding a new driver or
> filesystem.
>
> > If not, I don't think it is relevant. Odds are you want to be your own
> > series of patches, like we discussed years ago, right?
>
> I don't think I do want to have my own series of patches, because
> TuxOnIce doesn't remove or rework swsusp or uswsusp, but sits along side
> them. I'm not trying to mutate swsusp into TuxOnIce, because that would
> require a complete rework of swsusp from the ground up (TuxOnIce does
> everything but the atomic copy/restore and associated prep/cleanup
> differently).
Like always, you need to divide your changes up into logical chunks in
order to get them approved and reviewed. For such a core functionality
like suspend, this is extra important.
I do not think that -staging is proper for this kind of feature at this
point in time.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:27:23PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> Greg,
>
> The OSD initiator (see
> http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=open-osd.git;a=summary)
> looks in principle like a great fit for linux-staging.
Why isn't that just going directly into the linux-scsi tree when ready?
It doesn't look like it has coding style issues, does it? What is
keeping it from being included today?
> What would be the mechanics of including it?
Just send me a patch :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:50:34PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Benny Halevy wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > The OSD initiator (see
> > http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=open-osd.git;a=summary)
> > looks in principle like a great fit for linux-staging.
> >
>
> The patches are not yet there, Benny. They are currently
> out-of-tree here:
> http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=osd-lib.git;a=summary
>
> It will take me until end of next week to separate them into
> a consumable patchset. Which will also move them in-tree.
>
> > What would be the mechanics of including it?
> >
>
> I want to send them to linux-scsi-ml and also To: Greg KH
> Requesting to be included in "linux-staging tree". Is that
> sufficient?
If they are to go into linux-scsi, why would you need/want them in the
-staging tree as well?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:45:55AM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
>
> Would the linux-staging tree be an appropriate place to merge a new
> architecture? Or would that be too large a change and should go via
> its own tree?
That is probably too big to go into -staging and should deserve its own
tree based on the size of patches that have gone into creating a new
architecture in the past.
Do you have an example of one that is currently not included in the main
kernel tree right now?
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:50:34PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> Benny Halevy wrote:
>>> Greg,
>>>
>>> The OSD initiator (see
>>> http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=open-osd.git;a=summary)
>>> looks in principle like a great fit for linux-staging.
>>>
>> The patches are not yet there, Benny. They are currently
>> out-of-tree here:
>> http://git.open-osd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=osd-lib.git;a=summary
>>
>> It will take me until end of next week to separate them into
>> a consumable patchset. Which will also move them in-tree.
>>
>>> What would be the mechanics of including it?
>>>
>> I want to send them to linux-scsi-ml and also To: Greg KH
>> Requesting to be included in "linux-staging tree". Is that
>> sufficient?
>
> If they are to go into linux-scsi, why would you need/want them in the
> -staging tree as well?
>
We're jumping the guns here a bit, but ...
The code is pretty stable and robust as far as the protocol and performance
is concerned, surly once I in-tree them, divide them into patches, prettify
comments, add file-headers, and checkpatch them.
But the bigger implications are not yet clear, and will need advise from
the list, which could take time. Mainly in regard to upper ULD and tests.
Currently there are 4 users for this code:
- pNFS-over-objects layout driver
- pNFS-over-objects Simple Server implementation (spNFS)
- OSDVFS - Virtual psuedo file system to access and debug OSD luns from user mode.
(This is not the OSDFS from IBM which is a general FS over objects,
but a direct representation of the OSD Lun to user mode)
- Testing
The first 3 are their own ULD and do not need a proper SCSI-ULD. With some
changes to sg.c they can manage with what we have now. The later is just
for debugging.
On the other hand a true OSD-ULD that exports /dev/osdx char and/or block
devices, has merits and future directions of it's own. And will eliminate
the need for changes in sg.c
So the mechanics are pretty much there but the direction is not clear, which
will govern the folders/exports/dependencies. But I'm not sure -staging tree
will help in any of that. I do have my git.open-osd.org exports and can manage
all that there. It could help in exposure and testing of the code.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thanks
Boaz
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:45:55AM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
>>
>> Would the linux-staging tree be an appropriate place to merge a new
>> architecture? Or would that be too large a change and should go via
>> its own tree?
>
> That is probably too big to go into -staging and should deserve its own
> tree based on the size of patches that have gone into creating a new
> architecture in the past.
Our tree is about 26000 lines of diff, including a few drivers.
> Do you have an example of one that is currently not included in the main
> kernel tree right now?
I have a tree that is currently about half way to public consumption,
although I don't think there's any point pushing it until we have a
publically available toolchain.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:37:56PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:45:55AM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> >>
> >> Would the linux-staging tree be an appropriate place to merge a new
> >> architecture? Or would that be too large a change and should go via
> >> its own tree?
> >
> > That is probably too big to go into -staging and should deserve its own
> > tree based on the size of patches that have gone into creating a new
> > architecture in the past.
>
> Our tree is about 26000 lines of diff, including a few drivers.
That's pretty sizable, I think it deserves its own tree.
> > Do you have an example of one that is currently not included in the main
> > kernel tree right now?
>
> I have a tree that is currently about half way to public consumption,
> although I don't think there's any point pushing it until we have a
> publically available toolchain.
Yeah, that would help as well :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
>
> Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
> a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
>
>
> In a long and meandering thread with some of the other kernel developers
> a week or so ago, it came up that there is no single place for companies
> and developers to put their code for testing while it gets cleaned up
> for submission into the kernel tree.
<HIGHLIGHT>
> All of the different subsystems
> have trees, but they generally only want code that is about to go into
> this release, or the next one. For stuff that is farther off, there is
> no place to go.
</HIGHLIGHT>
> So, here's the tree for it. From the README:
>
> PURPOSE
>
> The linux-staging tree was created to hold drivers and filesystems and
> other semi-major additions to the Linux kernel that are not ready to be
> merged at this point in time. It is here for companies and authors to
> get a wider range of testing, and to allow for other members of the
> community to help with the development of these features for the
> eventual inclusion into the main kernel tree.
>
> This tree will be included in the daily linux-next builds, and will get
> testing by all users of that tree.
This is great. To let this be useful for wireless we'll need
wireless-testing.git merged as we rely on it for the latest and
greatest. Is this a possibility?
> The rules of what can be included here is as follows:
> - the code must be released under a Linux kernel-compatible
> license
> - the goal of the developers must be to merge this code into the
> main kernel tree in the near future, but not for the next
> kernel release.
> - the code must build properly on the x86 platform
> - this is not a tree for bugfixes or rewrites of existing kernel
> code, this should be for new features, drivers, and
> filesystems.
> - the patches included must detail exactly what is needed to be
> completed in order for them to be included into the main
> kernel tree.
> - there must be some email address associated with the patch
> that can be used for bug reporting and questions about
> cleanups and testing the code.
>
> What this tree is not:
> - it is not a place to dump features that are being actively
> developed by a community of people (reiserfs4 for example.)
> - it is not a place to dump code and then run away, hoping that
> someone else will do the cleanup work for you. While there
> are developers available to do this kind of work, you need to
> get someone to agree to "babysit" the code.
>
>
> I'll follow up this message with a list of the current status of the
> individual patches and what is currently contained in the tree. I hope
> to release a status like this every week or so, depending on how the
> development goes.
>
> What I need from all of you:
> Kernel Janitors:
> Here is the perfect way to get involved. The code in this tree
> is in desparate need of cleanups and fixes that can be trivially
> found using 'sparse' and 'scripts/checkpatch.pl'. I'll gladly
> take these kinds of patches and of course, correctly credit you.
>
> Linux driver project developers:
> Same as above, here's a great place to start out helping with
> real code. If any of you wants to take any of these drivers
> over and become the primary contact point for them, just let me
> know.
>
> Linux-next developers:
> Stephen, I would really like this tree to be included in -next.
> Yes, I know it contains things that will not be included in the
> next release, but the inclusion and basic build testing that is
> provided by your tree is invaluable. You can place it at the
> end, and if there is even a whiff of a problem in any of the
> patches, you have my full permission to drop them on the floor
> and run away screaming (and let me know please, so I can fix it
> up.)
>
> Linux kernel developers:
> If there are any external patches floating around for drivers
> that need to be cleaned up and gotten into the kernel tree,
> please point them out to me and I'll be glad to add them to this
> tree and work to get them included. Right now we are pushing:
> - 192 files changed, 131073 insertions(+), 651 deletions(-)
> so what's a few more thousand lines of code :)
We have a few drivers which are not yet ready for
wireless-testing.git. Airgo is one.
Anyway, good stuff. Let me know what you think about letting this work
for wireless too.
Luis
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 07:14:32AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> This is great. To let this be useful for wireless we'll need
> wireless-testing.git merged as we rely on it for the latest and
> greatest. Is this a possibility?
> We have a few drivers which are not yet ready for
> wireless-testing.git. Airgo is one.
>
> Anyway, good stuff. Let me know what you think about letting this work
> for wireless too.
I don't think directly pulling wireless-testing is a good idea of
-staging for process-related reasons. However I think we can arrange
to send something for the new tree. at76, airgo, and mrv8k are all
decent candidates.
Greg, how does the -staging tree get managed? Is it periodically
rebuilt (like -next)? Or would I need to send you pull requests?
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:33 AM, John W. Linville
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 07:14:32AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> This is great. To let this be useful for wireless we'll need
>> wireless-testing.git merged as we rely on it for the latest and
>> greatest. Is this a possibility?
>
>> We have a few drivers which are not yet ready for
>> wireless-testing.git. Airgo is one.
>>
>> Anyway, good stuff. Let me know what you think about letting this work
>> for wireless too.
>
> I don't think directly pulling wireless-testing is a good idea of
> -staging for process-related reasons. However I think we can arrange
> to send something for the new tree. at76, airgo, and mrv8k are all
> decent candidates.
>
> Greg, how does the -staging tree get managed? Is it periodically
> rebuilt (like -next)? Or would I need to send you pull requests?
Its just quit patches.
Luis
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 07:14:32AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> This is great. To let this be useful for wireless we'll need
> wireless-testing.git merged as we rely on it for the latest and
> greatest. Is this a possibility?
Hm, why? Is it really needed for you to have this pulled in? What is
keeping these drivers from being added to the -next tree today?
> We have a few drivers which are not yet ready for
> wireless-testing.git. Airgo is one.
If you have individual drivers, I'd be glad to take them into the tree
if you think it will help out. Just send me a patch that can build
properly.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:33:29AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 07:14:32AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > This is great. To let this be useful for wireless we'll need
> > wireless-testing.git merged as we rely on it for the latest and
> > greatest. Is this a possibility?
>
> > We have a few drivers which are not yet ready for
> > wireless-testing.git. Airgo is one.
> >
> > Anyway, good stuff. Let me know what you think about letting this work
> > for wireless too.
>
> I don't think directly pulling wireless-testing is a good idea of
> -staging for process-related reasons. However I think we can arrange
> to send something for the new tree. at76, airgo, and mrv8k are all
> decent candidates.
Sounds good to me.
> Greg, how does the -staging tree get managed? Is it periodically
> rebuilt (like -next)? Or would I need to send you pull requests?
Just send me patches, it's a quilt tree.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi!
> What this tree is not:
> - it is not a place to dump code and then run away, hoping that
> someone else will do the cleanup work for you. While there
> are developers available to do this kind of work, you need to
> get someone to agree to "babysit" the code.
Hmm, how do I tap into that developer pool? :-)
Kohjinsha wifi driver is in state where it was ported to mac80211, and
it still works with minimum features, but it needs dead code removal
and rewriting the rest. That code is really very ugly.
I can do the handholding; I can probably do the rewrite, too (its
10000LoC), but it will take time...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:51:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > What this tree is not:
> > - it is not a place to dump code and then run away, hoping that
> > someone else will do the cleanup work for you. While there
> > are developers available to do this kind of work, you need to
> > get someone to agree to "babysit" the code.
>
> Hmm, how do I tap into that developer pool? :-)
>
> Kohjinsha wifi driver is in state where it was ported to mac80211, and
> it still works with minimum features, but it needs dead code removal
> and rewriting the rest. That code is really very ugly.
>
> I can do the handholding; I can probably do the rewrite, too (its
> 10000LoC), but it will take time...
If the patch at least builds, send it to me for inclusion in -staging if
you want to get some exposure for it.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Is there a separate mailing-list for staging?
--
Thanks and Regards,
Jike
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh great, not yet-another-kernel-tree, just what the world needs...
>
> Yes, this is an announcement of a new kernel tree, linux-staging. It is
> a quilt series of patches that can be found at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:50:49AM +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Is there a separate mailing-list for staging?
Nope, lkml is fine for now, just be sure to cc: me so I notice it.
thanks,
greg k-h