For context, the most recent patch for the tile driver in question is here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/843892/ On 6/6/2011 5:23 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:01:36PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> On 6/6/2011 12:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Monday 06 June 2011, Timur Tabi wrote:. >>>> And what about my concern that my driver will be the only one in drivers/virt? >>> I have no doubt that more of these will come. Chris Metcalf is currently >>> looking for a home for his tilera hypervisor drivers, and we have the >>> microsoft hyperv drivers in drivers/staging, so they will hopefully >>> move to a proper place later. We also have similar drivers in other >>> places, e.g. drivers/ps3/ps3-sys-manager.c, drivers/s390/char/vmcp.c >>> or parts of drivers/xen. >> It might help if someone (Arnd?) wanted to propose a statement of what >> drivers/virt was really for. If it's for any Linux driver that upcalls to > Was for? I am not seeing it in v3.0-rc2? Sorry, maybe a questionable idiom, but please read past tense in the quoted text as meaning present tense :-) >> a hypervisor for any reason, then the Tilera paravirtualized drivers fit in >> well. If it's intended more for drivers that guests running under a >> hypervisor can use to talk to the hypervisor itself (e.g. managing > I believe that the code that deals with specific subsystem (so block API > for example) would reside in subsystem directory (so drivers/block would have > your virtualization block driver). This allows the maintainer of block > to make sure your driver is OK. Sure, makes sense. The new push (as I understand it) is to group primarily by function, not by bus or architecture. >> notifications that a hypervisor delivers to a guest to cause it to shut >> down or take other actions), then it doesn't seem like the Tilera > That looks to be arch/<x>/tilera/virt/ candidate? Arnd, among others, has suggested that all drivers live in "drivers" somewhere, so "arch/tile" may not be the best place. (To be fair, I originally had this driver in arch/tile/drivers/, so your idea is certainly reasonable!) >> paravirtualized device drivers belong there, since they're just using the >> Tilera hypervisor synchronously to do I/O or get/set device and driver state. > Well, I/O sounds like block API or network API. But then you are also > doing management ioctl - which implies "drivers". "drivers/tilera" does not > work? There is certainly precedent for drivers that don't fit cleanly into an existing category to go in drivers/<arch>, e.g. drivers/s390, drivers/parisc, etc. There is also drivers/platform/x86, though that seems to be for the bus "platform drivers" rather than just a random character driver like the one in question. I don't have a particular opinion here; I'm just hoping to develop enough consensus that I can ask Linus to pull the driver without generating controversy :-) -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-console" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
