Hi Am 13.07.23 um 17:14 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
On 13/07/2023 16:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:Hi Am 13.07.23 um 16:41 schrieb Sean Paul:On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04 AM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:hello Sean, On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost IM[biased]O.I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could betrivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you write dev ordrm (or whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same way.Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on future cherry-picks. Downstream kernels will have to backport the whole set. Backporting the entire set will create an epoch in downstream kernels where cherry-picking patches preceding this set will need to undergo conflict resolution as well. As mentioned in my previous email, I don't expect sympathy here, it's part of maintaining a downstream kernel, but there is a real cost to kernel consumers.But even with the one-patch-per-rename approach I'd consider the renaming a net win, because ease of understanding code has a big value. It's value is not so easy measurable as "conflicts when backporting", but it also matters in say two years from now, while backporting shouldn't be an issue then any more.You've rightly identified the conjecture in your statement. I've been on both sides of the argument, having written/maintained drm code upstream and cherry-picked changes to a downstream kernel. Perhaps it's because drm's definition of dev is ingrained in my muscle memory, or maybe it's because I don't do a lot of upstream development these days, but I just have a hard time seeing the benefit here.I can only second what Sean writes. I've done quite a bit of backporting of DRM code. It's hard already. And this kind of change is going to to affect almost every backported DRM patch in the coming years. Not just for distribution kernels, but also for upstream's stable series. It's really only possible to do this change over many releases while keeping compatible with the old name. So the more I think about it, the less I like this change.I've done my share of backporting, and still am doing it, so I can say I dislike it as much as anyone, however.. Is this an argument which the kernel as a wider entity typically accepts? If not could it be a slippery slope to start a precedent?
IMHO upstream patches should only be judged by their effect on the upstream. Backporting, API stability, out-of-tree drivers, etc should not be a concern. I think that we (the DRM devs) are mostly living up to that ideal. OTOH if a change has been accepted, it's fair to ask how to make it in the least intrusive way.
But with this change, it doesn't add up for me. The benefit to Linux is rather cosmetic. And the possible downsides are significant even if we ignore downstream distribution kernels. Merging between DRM trees will be affected, backporting into stable kernels as well, the rename will mess up git blame with rename commits.
Best regards Thomas
It is a honest question - I am not familiar if there were or were not any similar discussions in the past.My gut feeling is that *if* there is a consensus that something _improves_ the code base significantly, backporting pains should probably not be weighted very heavily as a contra argument.Regards, Tvrtko
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
Description: OpenPGP digital signature