> On Aug 12, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Doug Ledford <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 08/07/2015 10:19 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:17:18AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> If bot barking doesn't bother anyone, then I'll keep the removal patch. >>> For some such a complaint might be grounds for rejecting the patch. >> >> If it's (a) in tree proper and (b) not one of the rare false positives I >> would consider it a reason for rejection as well. But this is the >> staging tree we're talking about. > > I want to put my $.02 in on this. The staging tree has meant different > things over time. In particular, it didn't used to be a place where "to > be removed" drivers went to hang out for a few releases before finally > being removed entirely. I suspect this policy of not touching staging > drivers with tree wide API changes pre-dates the policy of using staging > as an intermediate step in removal. It would seem to me that saying we > are going to remove a driver in 4.6 and moving it to staging for that > purpose, and then immediately breaking it so it doesn't compile, is not > compatible with the goals of orderly device driver removal (namely: > alerting people to the upcoming change, waiting a reasonable period of > time for objections/feedback, and then removing the driver if no one > brings forth a case for it to stay in the kernel). It effectively > becomes an immediate removal. For that reason, I can't say that I agree > with this policy of skipping staging drivers for API updates, at least > as it applies to drivers that were in the tree proper and are in staging > now as part of their orderly removal process. > > I can't say as I really agree with the policy for drivers coming in > through staging either unless the authors of the driver are allowing it > to languish and not pursuing their TODO list. > > In any case, I don't expect to have stuff from the RDMA core in staging > for an extended amount of time. But right now there is, and for the way > I'm using the staging area, *I* care if your patch breaks the drivers > that are there.
That makes sense, but you already Acked the change that breaks Lustre, and it's going in through the NFS tree. Are you changing that to a NAK?-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
