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;
Message-ID: <fd143218-d8ba-e6c5-9225-b8e2aee09979@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 10:04:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: Linux 6.2-rc1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=c3=a1r?= <pali@kernel.org>
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>
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>
 <20230106165809.vkz7lr7gi3xce22e@pali>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <20230106165809.vkz7lr7gi3xce22e@pali>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/6/23 9:58?AM, Pali Roh?r wrote:
> 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.

I did sent out the revert this morning, would be great if you can test
6.2-rc3 when it is out. I'm a bit skeptical on the whole devnode front,
and suspect we might need to convert that to disk_name manipulation.
Which would be fine, as we can then drop the devnode reinstate revert as
well going forward. But I need to find a bit of time to look closer at
this part.

-- 
Jens Axboe