On 2019年08月16日 14:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25:41AM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote:
The first three patches are the changes under x86/acrn, which adds the
required APIs for the driver and reports the X2APIC caps.
The remaining patches add the ACRN driver module, which accepts the ioctl
from user-space and then communicate with the low-level ACRN hypervisor
by using hypercall.
I have a problem with that: you're adding interfaces to arch/x86/ and
its users go into staging. Why? Why not directly put the driver where
it belongs, clean it up properly and submit it like everything else is
submitted?
Thanks for your reply and the concern.
After taking a look at several driver examples(gma500, android), it
seems that they are firstly added into drivers/staging/XXX and then
moved to drivers/XXX after the driver becomes mature.
So we refer to this method to upstream ACRN driver part.
If the new driver can also be added by skipping the staging approach,
we will refine it and then submit it in normal process.
I don't want to have stuff in arch/x86/ which is used solely by code in
staging and the latter is lingering there indefinitely because no one is
cleaning it up...
The ACRN driver will be the only user of the added APIs in x86/acrn.
Without the APIs in x86/acrn, the driver can't add the driver-specifc
upcall notification ISR or call the hypercall.
Not sure whether it can be sent in two patch sets?
The first is to add the required APIs for ACRN driver.
The second is to add the ACRN driver
Thanks
Yakui
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
