On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 11:08:55AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 08:23:49PM +0000, Ertman, David M wrote: > > > -----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. > > > > Through our internal review process, objections were raised on naming the > > new bus virtual bus. The main objection was that virtual bus was too close to virtio, > > virtchnl, etc., that /sys/bus/virtual would be confused with /sys/bus/virtio, and > > there is just a lot of 'virt' stuff in the kernel already. > > We already have a virtual bus/location in the driver model today, has > that confused anyone? I see this as an extension of that logic and > ideally, those users will be moved over to this interface over time as > well. > > > Several names were suggested (like peer bus, which was shot down because in > > parts on the English speaking world the peerage means nobility), finally > > "ancillary bus" was arrived at by consensus of not hating it. > > "not hating it", while sometimes is a good thing, for something that I > am going to have to tell everyone to go use, I would like to at least > "like it". And right now I don't like it... > > I think we should go back to "virtual" for now, or, if the people who > didn't like it on your "internal" reviews wish to participate here and > defend their choice, I would be glad to listen to that reasoning. Also, the fact that we are even talking about a core kernel function on only the alsa-devel list is pretty horrible. I'm just going to drop this whole thread and wait until you can submit it properly before responding anymore on it. greg k-h
