[RFC PATCH 00/12] Ion cleanup in preparation for moving out of staging

Michal Hocko mhocko at kernel.org
Fri Mar 3 13:29:49 UTC 2017


On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be
> moved out of staging.
> 
> This includes the following:
> - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of use
>   as far as I can tell.
> - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2]
>   but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing
>   applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an effort
>   to move to a model that isn't going directly against the establishement
>   though.
> - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well
>   recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as
>   specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to
>   userspace.
> - CMA allocations now happen without the need of a dummy device structure.
>   This fixes a bunch of the reasons why I attempted to add devicetree
>   support before.
> 
> I've had problems getting feedback in the past so if I don't hear any major
> objections I'm going to send out with the RFC dropped to be picked up.
> The only reason there isn't a patch to come out of staging is to discuss any
> other changes to the ABI people might want. Once this comes out of staging,
> I really don't want to mess with the ABI.

Could you recapitulate concerns preventing the code being merged
normally rather than through the staging tree and how they were
addressed?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


More information about the devel mailing list