I have also sent this patch set to netdev and linux-rdma mailing lists. -DaveE > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:14 AM > To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; pierre- > louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sridharan, Ranjani > <ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxx>; jgg@xxxxxxxxxx; parav@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client > support > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:50:45PM -0700, Dave Ertman wrote: > > The ancillary bus (then known as virtual bus) was originally submitted > > along with implementation code for the ice driver and irdma drive, > > causing the complication of also having dependencies in the rdma tree. > > This new submission is utilizing an ancillary bus consumer in only the > > sound driver tree to create the initial implementation and a single > > user. > > So this will not work for the ice driver and/or irdma drivers? It would > be great to see how they work for this as well as getting those > maintainers to review and sign off on this implementation as well. > Don't ignore those developers, that's a bit "odd", don't you think? > > To drop them from the review process is actually kind of rude, what > happens if this gets merged without their input? > > And the name, why was it changed and what does it mean? For non-native > english speakers this is going to be rough, given that I as a native > english speaker had to go look up the word in a dictionary to fully > understand what you are trying to do with that name. > > Naming is hard, but I think this name is really hard to explain and > understand, don't you think? > > thanks, > > greg k-h
