Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:01:44PM CEST, alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:56 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:39:11 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote: >> > > Hm, we currently group by vendor but the fact it's a private device >> > > is probably more important indeed. For example if Google submits >> > > a driver for a private device it may be confusing what's public >> > > cloud (which I think/hope GVE is) and what's fully private. >> > > >> > > So we could categorize by the characteristic rather than vendor: >> > > >> > > drivers/net/ethernet/${term}/fbnic/ >> > > >> > > I'm afraid it may be hard for us to agree on an accurate term, tho. >> > > "Unused" sounds.. odd, we don't keep unused code, "private" >> > > sounds like we granted someone special right not took some away, >> > > maybe "exclusive"? Or "besteffort"? Or "staging" :D IDK. >> > >> > Do we really need that categorization at the directory/filesystem level? >> > cannot we just document it clearly in the Kconfig help text and under >> > Documentation/networking/? >> >> From the reviewer perspective I think we will just remember. >> If some newcomer tries to do refactoring they may benefit from seeing >> this is a special device and more help is offered. Dunno if a newcomer >> would look at the right docs. >> >> Whether it's more "paperwork" than we'll actually gain, I have no idea. >> I may not be the best person to comment. > >Are we going to go through and retro-actively move some of the drivers >that are already there that are exclusive to specific companies? That >is the bigger issue as I see it. It has already been brought up that Why is it an issue? Very easy to move drivers to this new directory. >idpf is exclusive. In addition several other people have reached out >to me about other devices that are exclusive to other organizations. > >I don't see any value in it as it would just encourage people to lie >in order to avoid being put in what would essentially become a >blacklisted directory. You are thinking all or nothing. I'd say that if we have 80% of such drivers in the correct place/directory, it's a win. The rest will lie. Shame for them when it is discovered. > >If we are going to be trying to come up with some special status maybe >it makes sense to have some status in the MAINTAINERS file that would >indicate that this driver is exclusive to some organization and not >publicly available so any maintenance would have to be proprietary.