Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756830AbYJIVCb (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:02:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754310AbYJIVCX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:02:23 -0400 Received: from smtp6.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.153.40]:52046 "EHLO smtp6.pp.htv.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753397AbYJIVCW (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:02:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:01:37 +0300 From: Adrian Bunk To: Greg KH Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Gruenbacher , Jeff Mahoney Subject: Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging) Message-ID: <20081009210137.GA7126@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> References: <20080924230054.GA27730@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080924230054.GA27730@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2090 Lines: 56 On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > As we all discussed at the Kernel Summit this past week, I said I would > create a drivers/staging directory and start throwing lots of drivers > that are not of "mergable" status into it. >... > The 3rd patch creates the drivers/staging/ directory and Kconfig entries > and adds it to the build system. > > The 4th patch is an example of a driver that would go into this > directory, along with a driver_name.README file detailing what needs to > be done to this driver for cleanup/fixing, and who to contact about it. > It's also in such bad shape it doesn't even build against the kernel > kernel :) > > (I'll fix that up before submitting, all drivers should at least build > properly...) > > So, does this all look good to everyone? Any questions/issues? > > Oh, I guess I should add a MAINTAINER entry for this section of the > kernel, so to paraphrase Linus, I now get to be known as the "Maintainer > of Crap". Sorry for being late in the discussion, I'm currently catching up with my email backlog. What does that mean in practice for kernel development? Will breaking crap be considered OK? As an example, let's assume some crap drivers use the BKL in a way that it might require the BKL in some core part of the kernel. Will the person removing the BKL in the core part of the kernel be forced to fix the locking of all possibly affected crap drivers no matter how broken and undocumented it is, or can he simply ignore the crap and leave the fixing to the Maintainer of Crap? > thanks, > > greg k-h cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- 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/