On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:25AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote: > > > 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. Those two examples are probably the worst examples to ever look at :) The code quality of those submissions was horrible, gma500 took a very long time to clean up and there are parts of the android code that are still in staging to this day. > If the new driver can also be added by skipping the staging approach, > we will refine it and then submit it in normal process. That is the normal process, staging should not be needed at all for any code. It is a fall-back for when the company involved has no idea of how to upstream their code, which should NOT be the case here. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
