On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 02:16:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:44:46 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Another way to help allay these worries is commit to no new exports > > > > without in-tree users. In general, that should go without saying for > > > > any core changes for new or future hardware. > > > > > > I always intend to have an upstream user the issue is that the device > > > driver tree and the mm tree move a different pace and there is always > > > a chicken and egg problem. I do not think Andrew wants to have to > > > merge driver patches through its tree, nor Linus want to have to merge > > > drivers and mm trees in specific order. So it is easier to introduce > > > mm change in one release and driver change in the next. This is what > > > i am doing with ODP. Adding things necessary in 5.1 and working with > > > Mellanox to have the ODP HMM patch fully tested and ready to go in > > > 5.2 (the patch is available today and Mellanox have begin testing it > > > AFAIK). So this is the guideline i will be following. Post mm bits > > > with driver patches, push to merge mm bits one release and have the > > > driver bits in the next. I do hope this sound fine to everyone. > > > > The track record to date has not been "merge HMM patch in one release > > and merge the driver updates the next". If that is the plan going > > forward that's great, and I do appreciate that this set came with > > driver changes, and maintain hope the existing exports don't go > > user-less for too much longer. > > Decision time. Jerome, how are things looking for getting these driver > changes merged in the next cycle? nouveau is merge already. > > Dan, what's your overall take on this series for a 5.1-rc1 merge? > > Jerome, what would be the risks in skipping just this [09/10] patch? As nouveau is a new user it does not regress anything but for RDMA mlx5 (which i expect to merge new window) it would regress that driver. Cheers, Jérôme
