On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:10:19 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You're correct. We chose to go this way because the HMM code is so
> > large and all-over-the-place that developing it in a standalone tree
> > seemed impractical - better to feed it into mainline piecewise.
> >
> > This decision very much assumed that HMM users would definitely be
> > merged, and that it would happen soon. I was skeptical for a long time
> > and was eventually persuaded by quite a few conversations with various
> > architecture and driver maintainers indicating that these HMM users
> > would be forthcoming.
> >
> > In retrospect, the arrival of HMM clients took quite a lot longer than
> > was anticipated and I'm not sure that all of the anticipated usage
> > sites will actually be using it. I wish I'd kept records of
> > who-said-what, but I didn't and the info is now all rather dissipated.
> >
> > So the plan didn't really work out as hoped. Lesson learned, I would
> > now very much prefer that new HMM feature work's changelogs include
> > links to the driver patchsets which will be using those features and
> > acks and review input from the developers of those driver patchsets.
>
> This is what i am doing now and this patchset falls into that. I did
> post the ODP and nouveau bits to use the 2 new functions (dma map and
> unmap). I expect to merge both ODP and nouveau bits for that during
> the next merge window.
>
> Also with 5.1 everything that is upstream is use by nouveau at least.
> They are posted patches to use HMM for AMD, Intel, Radeon, ODP, PPC.
> Some are going through several revisions so i do not know exactly when
> each will make it upstream but i keep working on all this.
>
> So the guideline we agree on:
> - no new infrastructure without user
> - device driver maintainer for which new infrastructure is done
> must either sign off or review of explicitly say that they want
> the feature I do not expect all driver maintainer will have
> the bandwidth to do proper review of the mm part of the infra-
> structure and it would not be fair to ask that from them. They
> can still provide feedback on the API expose to the device
> driver.
The patchset in -mm ("HMM updates for 5.1") has review from Ralph
Campbell @ nvidia. Are there any other maintainers who we should have
feedback from?
> - driver bits must be posted at the same time as the new infra-
> structure even if they target the next release cycle to avoid
> inter-tree dependency
> - driver bits must be merge as soon as possible
Are there links to driver patchsets which we can add to the changelogs?
> Thing we do not agree on:
> - If driver bits miss for any reason the +1 target directly
> revert the new infra-structure. I think it should not be black
> and white and the reasons why the driver bit missed the merge
> window should be taken into account. If the feature is still
> wanted and the driver bits missed the window for simple reasons
> then it means that we push everything by 2 release ie the
> revert is done in +1 then we reupload the infra-structure in
> +2 and finaly repush the driver bit in +3 so we loose 1 cycle.
> Hence why i would rather that the revert would only happen if
> it is clear that the infrastructure is not ready or can not
> be use in timely (over couple kernel release) fashion by any
> drivers.
I agree that this should be more a philosophy than a set of hard rules.
