Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: >> >> On 2017å¹´03æ??14æ?¥ 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: >>> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 <david1.zhou at amd.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Dave, >>>> >>>> Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out >>>> our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? >>> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of >>> direct review. >>> >>> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he >>> thinks this should >>> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, >>> so I just adapted >>> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd >>> specific code >>> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as >>> an rfc, as I want >>> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may >>> end up going >>> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad >>> idea, so far it >>> doesn't look like one. >>> >>> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal >>> interfaces, >>> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in >>> there I re >>> wrote that as well. >> Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this >> implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could >> need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. > This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream > first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff > like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary > internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience > implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development > here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? Christian. > -Daniel
