* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [110330 16:11]: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [110330 15:35]: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:54:35PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [110330 14:07]: > > > > > > > > > > So one person will be not enough, that needs to be a whole team of > > > > > experienced people in the very near future to deal with the massive > > > > > tsunami of crap which is targeted at mainline. If we fail to set that > > > > > up, then we run into a very ugly maintainability issue in no time. > > > > > > > > One thing that will help here and distribute the load is to move > > > > more things under drivers/ as then we have more maintainers looking > > > > at the code. > > > > > > In many cases, the ARM SoC vendors will want their people producing the > > > code, so although moving things to drivers might be a good thing to do, > > > it won't really increase the number of people involved. Plus the move > > > to the drivers subtree would be a problem for devices with tight ties > > > to the board or SoC. > > > > > > There is work on pushing towards common code, but there is a lot of code > > > and this will take time and a lot of work. > > > > I agree on the common code part, then even drivers with tight > > ties to board or SoC become just generic drivers that are easy > > to review. > > You wish. There is an already existing problem that the identical IP > cores of peripheral crap are reused accross architectures. And of > course because it is a different architecture we have two different > drivers with different issues. > > See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130041568128164 Yeah that's a problem. And getting people to create generic device drivers is hard, takes tons of commenting and still needs some hardware workaround options passed in the platform_data.. > We already fail to detect this on the driver level, so please answer > the question I asked before: How do you spread the load and scale with > the amount of shite which is coming in? Sorry I don't have a solution to that :) I'm struggling with that issue big time myself. > The above example is probably not the only one in tree and we will see > lots of unnoticed instances of drivers dealing with minimal different > versions of the same IP crappola in the near future simply because the > vendors claim that their stuff is unique and only works with their > particular instance of hackery unless we have enough capable people to > look over this. Whether it's in arch/ or drivers/ it does not > matter. We are simply not prepared to the amount of crap coming in. Yes I agree. Tools like checkpatch and sparse don't help with issues like this. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
