Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Irrespective of this code being buggy or not buggy I think the bigger > pictures, and really the reason I want to see as much code ditched > from the fbdev/fbcon stack as we possible can, are very clear: > > - it's full of bugs > - there's no test coverage/CI to speak of > - it's very arcane code which is damn hard to understand and fix issues within > - the locking is busted (largely thanks to console_lock, and the > effort to make that reasonable from -rt folks has been slowly creeping > forward for years). > > Iow this subsystem is firmly stuck in the 90s, and I think it's best > to just leave it there. There's also not been anyone actually capable > and willing to put in the work to change this (pretty much all actual > changes/fixes have been done by drm folks anyway, like me having a > small pet project to make the fbdev vs fbcon locking slightly less > busted). Saying it's stuck in the 90ies, and actively trying to prevent Helge from taking over maintainership at the same time looks odd. I think Helge should at least get a chance to fix the issues. If the state is still the same in a year or so it should be discussed again. > The other side is that being a maintainer is about collaboration, and > this entire fbdev maintainership takeover has been a demonstration of > anything but that. MAINTAINERS entry was a bit confusing since defacto > drm has been maintaining it for years. It was marked as 'Orphaned'. Anyone is free to send a Patch/PR to take over maintainership. If you have strong opinions about that code (And you obviously have reading your mail, set it to 'maintained' and care about it. Everything else is just wrong in my opinion. /Sven
