Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 04:22:46PM +0100, leon@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:32:54PM +0100, jgg@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:42:03PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:00:36 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> >> > I never agreed to that formulation. I suggested that perhaps runtime >> >> > configurations where netdev is the only driver using the HW could be >> >> > disabled (ie a netdev exclusion, not a rdma inclusion). >> >> >> >> I thought you were arguing that me opposing the addition was >> >> "maintainer overreach". As in me telling other parts of the kernel >> >> what is and isn't allowed. Do I not get a say what gets merged under >> >> drivers/net/ now? >> > >> >The PCI core drivers are a shared resource jointly maintained by all >> >the subsytems that use them. They are maintained by their respective >> >maintainers. Saeed/etc in this case. >> > >> >It would be inappropriate for your preferences to supersede Saeed's >> >when he is a maintainer of the mlx5_core driver and fwctl. Please try >> >and get Saeed on board with your plan. >> > >> >If the placement under drivers/net makes this confusing then we can >> >certainly change the directory names. >> >> According to how mlx5 driver is structured, and the rest of the advanced >> drivers in the same area are becoming as well, it would make sense to me >> to have mlx5 core in separate core directory, maintained directly by driver >> maintainer: >> drivers/core/mlx5/ >> then each of the protocol auxiliary device lands in appropriate >> subsystem directory. > >In my vision, the write access to that drivers/core/ will be given to all >relevant subsystem maintainers, so it will operate like shared branch, but >foe everyone. > >It means that series for netdev that changes mlx5_core and netdev code >will be sent to netdev and applied by netdev maintainers. In similar >way, series which targets RDMA will be handled by RDMA crew. > >It will allow us to make sure that every piece of code in shared >repository is actually used. Makes perfect sense to me.
