On 3/30/22 9:23 AM, Philipp Reisner wrote: >>> Jens, my intention is to keep it in-tree, and at some point update it. >>> Regarding your questions: >> >> That'd be great, but it's been years since there was any significant >> updates to the in-kernel drbd... I would strongly suggest that the >> in-kernel be brought closer to what people are mostly running, as it >> stands it's basically unmaintained. > > The changes we worked on over many Years in the more recent drbd-9.x > branches are just too fundamental to do them in small chunks, we could > upstream bit by bit. We need to get that reviewed in a big series. If I Your development model is fundamentally broken. You've allowed your 9.x branch to totally drift from mainline, which just helps underline my earlier point on that in-kernel drbd is effectively abandoned and unmaintained. > started to dump them on linux-block right away, nobody would look at it > seriously, since it would be too much. I intend to get people from red > hat/suse assigned to do such a review. Then we will do that on linux-block, > so that everyone who cares sees what happens. You're just doing it totally wrong. Upstream kernel should match your 9.x branch, and it should have been developed in sync. What you appear to have done is to ignore mainline, while it would've been correct and much easier in the long run to ensure that development is regularly synced to the mainline kernel. You know, like EVERY other driver that is maintained does. Now you've got a giant pile of patches, which probably don't adhere to how we would've done the mainline commits in the first place, and it'll cause a huge pain for not just you but upstream reviewers. I don't care about the former, but I do care a lot about the latter. That's a giant waste of the time of the folks involved on the block side, and definitely not what a responsible kernel maintainer would do.
