Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934876AbZJOQmm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:42:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933331AbZJOQmk (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:42:40 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:53375 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932130AbZJOQmk (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:42:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:39:51 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Stefan Richter cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH Subject: Re: removing existing working drivers via staging In-Reply-To: <4AD74ED7.9070501@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Message-ID: References: <4AD74ED7.9070501@s5r6.in-berlin.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2872 Lines: 60 On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Stefan Richter wrote: > david@lang.hm wrote: >> I missed this discussion in the thread "Moving drivers into >> staging (was Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-" and I suspect that >> many others did as well >> >> for those that missed it, as I understand it the proposal is that 'ugly' >> (working drivers that don't do things the kernel way and are perceived as >> not being commonly used anymore) drivers will get moved into staging, and > > There was mention of "abandoned and unused" drivers (rather than "not > /commonly/ used anymore"), see e.g. > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-10/msg05204.html > (2nd to last paragraph; thread continues with Greg's follow-up). how can you tell if a driver is "unused"? (other than leaving it broken for several years and getting no complaints) >> if the driver maintainers do not clean them up within 6-9 months they will >> be removed entirely. >> >> the expectation is that if there are no maintainers for the driver who >> care enough to do the cleanup they should be removed (with interested >> users being able to take over maintaining the drivers if there the >> maintainers are MIA) >> >> I have several reactions to this >> >> I think that 6-9 months (2-3 releases) is _far_ too short for users to >> notice. most users will be using a distro kernel that is on a release >> cycle longer than this (even if they are not using a 'enterprise' distro), >> so their first inkling of a problem will be the driver disappearing on >> them. Yes the driver can be recovered through git, bit at that point >> there is going to be catch-up changes to make. >> >> What happened to the desire that Linux would be able to use anything, and >> once a driver was upstream changes to the kernel that would break it >> should be fixed by whoever is introducing those changes? This seems to be >> moving in the direction of only having drivers for fairly current, fairly >> common hardware. > > AFAIU, mostly just code which is known to _not work_ anymore or has been > functionally replaced by an alternative drops out of the mainline. This > idea of using drivers/staging/ in the process is surely not going to > change that in principle; it will only raise awareness among active > kernel developers better than feature-removal-schedule.txt can do. I don't disagree with dropping code that has been replaced by an alternative. and I don't disagree much with dropping broken code. however, what I think I saw proposed was to move drivers that need to be 'cleaned up', to staging and then dropping them if they don't get cleaned. David Lang -- 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/