On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's >> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well. >> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be >> moved out of staging. >> >> This includes the following: >> - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of use >> as far as I can tell. >> - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2] >> but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing >> applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an effort >> to move to a model that isn't going directly against the establishement >> though. >> - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well >> recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as >> specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to >> userspace. >> - CMA allocations now happen without the need of a dummy device structure. >> This fixes a bunch of the reasons why I attempted to add devicetree >> support before. >> >> I've had problems getting feedback in the past so if I don't hear any major >> objections I'm going to send out with the RFC dropped to be picked up. >> The only reason there isn't a patch to come out of staging is to discuss any >> other changes to the ABI people might want. Once this comes out of staging, >> I really don't want to mess with the ABI. > > Could you recapitulate concerns preventing the code being merged > normally rather than through the staging tree and how they were > addressed? > Sorry, I'm really not understanding your question here, can you clarify? Thanks, Laura
