Hi Greg, On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 21:42 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:03:58AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:52:58AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > Hi Greg, > > > <SNIP> > > > This was a request from MST (CC'ed) in order to have TCM_VHOST show up > > > under the staging configuration options.. > > > > If you really want it to show up there, then send me a patch adding the > > code to drivers/staging/. Otherwise it really makes no sense. > > > > > If that's really not what should be done, I'm happy to drop this part > > > and just use CONFIG_STAGING again. > > > > Why are you wanting to depend on CONFIG_STAGING in the first place? > > What is wrong with the code that it can't be merged "properly" now? > > Don't use CONFIG_STAGING as a "crutch" unless you really need it. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > It's very similar to how it was with nouveau: we are not sure > we can commit to the userspace ABI yet. > > Most importantly, it still seems not 100% clear whether this driver will > have major userspace using it. And if not, it would be very hard to > support a driver when recent userspace does not use it in the end. > > At the moment arguments on upstream mailing list seem to be > a bit circular: there's no module in upstream kernel so > userspace does not want to accept the patches. > > If we put enabling this driver in staging, then it works out in one of > two ways > - userspace starts using it then this effectively freezes the ABI and > we move it out of staging next release > - no userspace uses it and we drop it completely or rework ABI > > On the other hand, it is marginally better to not want code in staging > for two reasons: > - there are dependencies between this code and other code in > drivers/vhost which are easier for me to handle if it's all > in one place > - a bit easier to track history if we do not move code > > What do you think? > After chatting with MST off-list he asked for a RFC-v4 series with one extra change to vhost.h wrt the vhost-scsi ioctl defs. He also said he is OK with taking the first three patches -v4 through vhost.git and letting staging take tcm_vhost. Of course we'd need staging to depend on vhost for that to work <cough> (compile) properly.. ;) I'd like to re-spin -v4 this evening so that he can review + ACK the full series before leaving for holiday tomorrow, so please let me know what you'd prefer to do here. So that said, do you prefer having tcm_vhost moved into drivers/staging for -v4, or should we just be using a CONFIG_STAGING tag in drivers/vhost/ and be done with it..? Thank you! --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
