Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755104AbYFRSj1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:39:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753440AbYFRSjU (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:39:20 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:56297 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753425AbYFRSjT (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:39:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:38:55 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: James Bottomley Cc: ksummit-2008-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Request for discussion on when to merge drivers Message-ID: <20080618153855.4d069bb1@gaivota> In-Reply-To: <1213802866.3515.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1213802866.3515.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.10; x86_64-mandriva-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1798 Lines: 42 On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:27:46 -0500 James Bottomley wrote: > I think the Kernel Summit would be a good place to have a discussion of > what the criteria are for merging a driver (even if, in the end, it's at > the discretion of the subsystem maintainers). I agree. > So perhaps in addition we should be > encouraging maintainers to run staging branches under similar rules in > the staging tree, but allowing inclusion into linux-next? This seems a good idea for drivers. One potencial issue that we may discuss is some sort of policy on how to deal with drivers at the "generic" staging tree versus a subsystem maintainer staging tree. I can foresee a few troubles if a maintainer have such tree, like: - After the fixes at -staging, the patch may be kept for a while at maintainer's staging tree. So, the workflow will be longer than having just one tree; - Two different patches for the same device can be sent to the "generic" staging and to the maintainer's staging tree. So, a conflict will rise (hopefully detected at linux-next, but may require additional checks for conflicts with PCI/USB ID's); On the other hand, without the maintainer's staging tree, this would mean that the maintainer would have to send their cooking drivers to the generic tree, with doesn't seem to be very productive. A possible solution would be if each maintainer with such staging tree would keep the wiki at linux driver project updated, but this adds some additional tasks to the maintainer's arms. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/