On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 3:10 PM WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But what for the users and downstream projects? Do the users owning
> LoongArch hardware (me included) and projects/companies porting their
> offerings have to pay for Loongson's mistakes and wait another [2mo,
> 1yr], "ideally" also missing the glibc 2.36 release too?
...
> Lastly, I'd like to clarify, that this is by no means a
> passive-aggressive statement to make the community look like "the bad
> guy", or to make Loongson "look bad"; I just intend to provide a
> hopefully fresh perspective from a/an {end user, hobbyist kernel
> developer, distro developer, native Chinese speaker with a hopefully
> decent grasp of English}'s view.
Your feedback has been extremely valuable, as always. I definitely
don't want to hold up merging the port for the glibc-2.36 release. If
that is a risk, and if merging the architecture port without the drivers
helps with that, I agree we should just do that. This will also help
with build testing and any treewide changes that are going to be
done on top of v5.19-rc1.
For the continuous maintenance, would you be available as an
additional Reviewer or co-maintainer to be listed in the maintainers
file? I think in general it is a good idea to have at least one maintainer
that is not directly part of the organization that owns the product,
and you are clearly the best person outside of loongson technology
for this.
Regarding the irqchip driver, merging those is entirely up to Marc and
Thomas. Marc already brought up the precedent of merging arch/arm64
without the required irqchip driver support, and if it turns out that he
find the latest driver submission acceptable, that might still make it in
through the irqchip tree.
Arnd
