Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-131968-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:35:40 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@nvidia.com>,
	Itay Avraham <itayavr@nvidia.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
	Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver
Message-ID: <20240404183540.GX11187@unreal>
References: <0ea32dd4-f408-5870-77eb-f18899f1ad44@gmail.com>
 <20240402184832.GO11187@unreal>
 <cefa2b9a-4227-969e-d31e-c19a552b9c1c@gmail.com>
 <20240403190012.GV11187@unreal>
 <d75ee9d5-36a9-4056-a0f3-0c05b2e744aa@kernel.org>
 <20240403170149.7d2b8f2b@kernel.org>
 <20240404122338.GI1723999@nvidia.com>
 <20240404074850.19ecd52e@kernel.org>
 <20240404174728.GL1723999@nvidia.com>
 <d0b11055-1804-515b-7916-cb83a6274955@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d0b11055-1804-515b-7916-cb83a6274955@gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 07:06:53PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> #include <disclaimer.h>
> 
> On 04/04/2024 18:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > The configurables exist as they are
> > and need to be supported, in one way or another, by the kernel.
> 
> Why?  What does the kernel get out of it?
> 
> Maybe *you* need them to be supported, but maybe you should have
>  thought of that earlier in the design process.  ("A failure on
>  your part to foresee the eminently foreseeable does not
>  constitute an emergency on mine.")
> If we let folks bypass our standards with a _fait accompli_, we
>  don't really have standards in the first place.

Sorry, who are "we" and what are "our standards"?

And, please, please reread the thread, it is not about devlink at all.

Thanks