Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132841-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:41:40 +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: <20240405104140.GZ11187@unreal>
References: <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>
 <d09cc7f0-3e2c-f22d-51ce-43a36412425b@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d09cc7f0-3e2c-f22d-51ce-43a36412425b@gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 08:46:41PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> 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.

You didn't answer my question. What are "our standards"?

Thanks