Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:58:09 +0100
From:   Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali@kernel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.2-rc1
Message-ID: <20230106165809.vkz7lr7gi3xce22e@pali>
References: <CAHk-=wh1x-gbmE72xBPcEnchvmPn=13mU--+7Cfay0dNHCxxuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230104205640.o2uy2jk4v6yfm4w3@pali>
 <CAHk-=wiDdw8tRzzx=ZBzUftC1TOiOO+kxv0s8HS342BC-jzkLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90eb90da-2679-cac0-979d-6ba0cc8ccbb8@kernel.dk>
 <20230105174210.jbjoqelllcrd57q6@pali>
 <58d3649f-3c8c-8b12-1930-f06f59837ad5@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wiKUWm3VoYHK-oKixc9nF5Qdwp598MPSoh=jdxKAU1bOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1933bddd-42d7-d92b-974f-f26c46c01547@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wjJ=wD5D80hkWNCjJqS+djckAL+nXhXaHaiFzMAMve3rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <182bc0ee-51e3-b8c4-59f7-dcf702865a95@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <182bc0ee-51e3-b8c4-59f7-dcf702865a95@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 05 January 2023 13:33:11 Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/5/23 1:03?PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So nobody is going to be motivated to do any development in this area,
> > and the best we can do is probably to just keep it limping along.
> 
> Indeed...
...
> > There's probably other cruft in pktcdvd that could be removed without
> > removing the whole driver, but I do get the feeling that it's just
> > less pain to keep the status quo, and that there isn't really much
> > motivation for anybody to do anything else.
> 
> I'm reluctant to touch it outside of changes that are driven by core
> changes, and of course the motivation to remove it was driven by not
> wanting to do that either. Any kind of re-architecting of how it works I
> would not advocate for. It supposedly works well enough that none of the
> (few) users are reporting issues with it, best to just let it remain
> like that imho.

Yea, I agree. This code is in state when it is _used_ and not developed
anymore. Nobody is really motivated to re-architecture or rewrite this
code. Such work has big probability to break something which currently
works fine. And because lot of users are on stable/LTS kernel versions,
it is possible that we would not notice breakage earlier than (lets say)
in 5 years.