Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132057-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
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>
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>
 <20240404183540.GX11187@unreal>
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d09cc7f0-3e2c-f22d-51ce-43a36412425b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 20:46:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20240404183540.GX11187@unreal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 04/04/2024 19:35, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 07:06:53PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>> 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"?

As should be obvious from context, "we" in that sentence referred to
 the mainline kernel.  And while participants in this thread currently
 disagree on what "our standards" are, I hope it is not contentious
 that the kernel community *does* have standards as to what code and
 design is acceptable for inclusion.
Necessarily, for those standards to be meaningful, there cannot be an
 exception for "oh, but we already built our product, it's too late
 now", otherwise everyone would just ignore the standards and then
 demand to be merged anyway.
That is true regardless of the specific standards in question.

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

Please, please, reread the email to which you are replying; it is
 not about devlink at all.

-ed