[RFC PATCH 00/15] acrn: add the ACRN driver module
yakui.zhao at intel.com
Mon Aug 19 05:39:25 UTC 2019
On 2019年08月19日 13:25, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:25AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
>> On 2019年08月16日 14:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25:41AM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote:
>>>> The first three patches are the changes under x86/acrn, which adds the
>>>> required APIs for the driver and reports the X2APIC caps.
>>>> The remaining patches add the ACRN driver module, which accepts the ioctl
>>>> from user-space and then communicate with the low-level ACRN hypervisor
>>>> by using hypercall.
>>> I have a problem with that: you're adding interfaces to arch/x86/ and
>>> its users go into staging. Why? Why not directly put the driver where
>>> it belongs, clean it up properly and submit it like everything else is
>> Thanks for your reply and the concern.
>> After taking a look at several driver examples(gma500, android), it seems
>> that they are firstly added into drivers/staging/XXX and then moved to
>> drivers/XXX after the driver becomes mature.
>> So we refer to this method to upstream ACRN driver part.
> Those two examples are probably the worst examples to ever look at :)
> The code quality of those submissions was horrible, gma500 took a very
> long time to clean up and there are parts of the android code that are
> still in staging to this day.
>> If the new driver can also be added by skipping the staging approach,
>> we will refine it and then submit it in normal process.
> That is the normal process, staging should not be needed at all for any
> code. It is a fall-back for when the company involved has no idea of
> how to upstream their code, which should NOT be the case here.
Thanks for your explanation.
OK. We will submit it in normal process.
> greg k-h
More information about the devel