On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:30:52PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:06 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:06:12AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:26 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [..] > > > > > Spirit of the rule is better than blind application of rule. > > > > > > > > Again, I fail to see why HMM is suddenly unable to make forward > > > > progress when the infrastructure that came before it was merged with > > > > consumers in the same development cycle. > > > > > > > > A gate to upstream merge is about the only lever a reviewer has to > > > > push for change, and these requests to uncouple the consumer only > > > > serve to weaken that review tool in my mind. > > > > > > Well let just agree to disagree and leave it at that and stop > > > wasting each other time > > > > I'm fine to continue this discussion if you are. Please be specific > > about where we disagree and what aspect of the proposed rules about > > merge staging are either acceptable, painful-but-doable, or > > show-stoppers. Do you agree that HMM is doing something novel with > > merge staging, am I off base there? I expect I can find folks that > > would balk with even a one cycle deferment of consumers, but can we > > start with that concession and see how it goes? I'm missing where I've > > proposed something that is untenable for the future of HMM which is > > addressing some real needs in gaps in the kernel's support for new > > hardware. > > /me quietly wonders why the hmm infrastructure can't be staged in a > maintainer tree development branch on a kernel.org and then > all merged in one go when that branch has both infrastructure and > drivers merged into it... > > i.e. everyone doing hmm driver work gets the infrastructure from the > dev tree, not mainline. That's a pretty standard procedure for > developing complex features, and it avoids all the issues being > argued over right now... True, but I wasn't considering that because the mm tree does not do stable topic branches. This kind of staging seems not amenable to a quilt workflow and it needs to keep pace with the rest of mm.
