Hi Stefan,
Às 10:03 PM de 1/19/2017, Stefan Beller escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Joao Pinto <joao.pi...@synopsys.com> wrote:
>> Às 7:16 PM de 1/19/2017, Linus Torvalds escreveu:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Joao Pinto <joao.pi...@synopsys.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am currently facing some challenges in one of Linux subsystems where a
>>>> rename
>>>> of a set of folders and files would be the perfect scenario for future
>>>> development, but the suggestion is not accepted, not because it's not
>>>> correct,
>>>> but because it makes the maintainer life harder in backporting bug fixes
>>>> and new
>>>> features to older kernel versions and because it is not easy to follow the
>>>> renamed file/folder history from the kernel.org history logs.
>>>
>>> Honestly, that's less of a git issue, and more of a "patch will not
>>> apply across versions" issue.
>>>
>>> No amount of rename detection will ever fix that, simply because the
>>> rename hadn't even _happened_ in the old versions that things get
>>> backported to.
>>>
>>> ("git cherry-pick" can do a merge resolution and thus do "backwards"
>>> renaming too, so tooling can definitely help, but it still ends up
>>> meaning that even trivial patches are no longer the _same_ trivial
>>> patch across versions).
>>>
>>> So renaming things increases maintainer workloads in those situations
>>> regardless of any tooling issues.
>>>
>>> (You may also be referring to the mellanox mess, where this issue is
>>> very much exacerbated by having different groups working on the same
>>> thing, and maintainers having very much a "I will not take _anything_
>>> from any of the groups that makes my life more complicated" model,
>>> because those groups fucked up so much in the past).
>>>
>>> In other words, quite often issues are about workflows rather than
>>> tools. The networking layer probably has more of this, because David
>>> actually does the backports himself, so he _really_ doesn't want to
>>> complicate things.
>>
>> I totally understand David' side! Synopsys is a well-known IP Vendor, and
>> for a
>> long time its focus was the IP only. Knowadays the strategy has changed and
>> Synopsys is very keen to help in Open Source, namelly Linux, developing the
>> drivers for new IP Cores and participating in the improvement of existing
>> ones.
>> I am part of the team that has that job.
>>
>> In USB and PCI subystems developers created common Synopsys drivers (focused
>> on
>> the HW IP) and so today they are massively used by all the SoC that use
>> Synopsys
>> IP.
>>
>> In the network subsystem, there are some drivers that target the same IP but
>> were made by different companies. stmmac is an excelent driver for Synopsys
>> MAC
>> 10/100/1000/QOS IPs, but there was another driver made by AXIS driver that
>> also
>> targeted the QOS IP. We detected that issue and merged the AXIS specific
>> driver
>> ops to stmmac, and nowadays, AXIS uses stmmac. So less drivers to maintain!
>>
>> The idea that was rejected consisted of renaming stmicro/stmmac to dwc/stmmac
>> and to have dwc (designware controllers) as the official driver spot for
>> Synopsys Ethernet IPs.
>> There is another example of duplication, which is AMD' and Samsung' XGMAC
>> driver, targeting the same Synopsys XGMAC IP.
>>
>> I am giving this examples because although the refactor adds work for
>> backporting, it reduces the maintenance since we would have less duplicated
>> drivers as we have today.
>
> This sounds as if the code in question would only receive backports
> for a specific
> time (determined by HW lifecycle, maintenance life cycle and such).
>
> So I wonder if this could be solved by not just renaming but
> additionally adding a
> symbolic link, such that the files in question seem to appear twice on
> the file system.
> Then backports ought to be applicable (hoping git-am doesn't choke on
> symlinks),
> and after a while once the there no backports any more (due to life
> cycle reasons),
> remove the link?
>
> This also sounds like a kind of problem, that others have run into before,
> how did they solve it?
I am currently involved in the PCI host/ refactor process and that will cause a
total reorganization of the folder, because a new PCIe Endpoint is comming up
from Texas Instruments. Bjorn (PCI Maintainer) is ok with it.
The network subsystem, is a very busy one, with lots of activity, and so I
understand David Miller' point, because he already has work overload, but we
have to find a way to improve it and prepare for the future.
I think this a hot topic, that should be discussed, since it might hold back the
evolution of some subystems.
Thanks,
Joao
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joao
>>
>>
>>> Linus
>>>
>>
