Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc:     Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@wdc.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        KVM General <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev
References: <20210519033553.1110536-1-anup.patel@wdc.com>
 <YKSa48cejI1Lax+/@kroah.com>
 <CAAhSdy18qySXbUdrEsUe-KtbtuEoYrys0TcmsV2UkEA2=7UQzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YKSgcn5gxE/4u2bT@kroah.com> <YKTsyyVYsHVMQC+G@kroah.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support
Message-ID: <d7d5ad76-aec3-3297-0fac-a9da9b0c3663@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 13:18:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YKTsyyVYsHVMQC+G@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 19/05/21 12:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> It is not a dumping ground for stuff that arch maintainers can not seem
>> to agree on, and it is not a place where you can just randomly play
>> around with user/kernel apis with no consequences.
>>
>> So no, sorry, not going to take this code at all.
>
> And to be a bit more clear about this, having other subsystem
> maintainers drop their unwanted code on this subsystem,_without_  even
> asking me first is just not very nice. All of a sudden I am now > responsible for this stuff, without me even being asked about it.
> Should I start throwing random drivers into the kvm subsystem for them
> to maintain because I don't want to?:)

(I did see the smiley), I'm on board with throwing random drivers in 
arch/riscv. :)

The situation here didn't seem very far from what process/2.Process.rst 
says about staging:

- "a way to keep track of drivers that aren't up to standards", though 
in this case the issue is not coding standards or quality---the code is 
very good---and which people "may want to use"

- the code could be removed if there's no progress on either changing 
the RISC-V acceptance policy or ratifying the spec

Of course there should have been a TODO file explaining the situation. 
But if you think this is not the right place, I totally understand; if 
my opinion had any weight in this, I would just place it in arch/riscv/kvm.

The RISC-V acceptance policy as is just doesn't work, and the fact that 
people are trying to work around it is proving it.  There are many ways 
to improve it:

- get rid of it;

- provide a path to get an exception;

- provide a staging place sot hat people to do their job of contributing 
code to Linux (e.g. arch/riscv/staging/kvm).

If everything else fail, I guess we can place it in 
drivers/virt/riscv/kvm, even though that's just as silly a workaround. 
It's a pity because the RISC-V virtualization architecture has a very 
nice design, and the KVM code is also a very good example of how to do 
things right.

Paolo

> If there's really no other way to do this, than to put it in staging,
> let's talk about it.  But saying "this must go here" is not a
> conversation...