On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 09:32:33AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 5/27/2016 9:13 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 07:44:15AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 07:51:57AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:34:28PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >>>> Hi Linus,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the second group of code for the 4.7 merge window.  It looks
> >>>> large, but only in one sense.  I'll get to that in a minute.  The list
> >>>> of changes here breaks down as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> Round two of 4.7 merge window patches
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> <...>
> >>>
> >>>> - The big item on the list: hfi1 driver updates, plus moving the hfi1
> >>>>  driver out of staging                             <- everything else
> >>>
> >>> Hi Doug and Linus,
> >>>
> >>> The move hfi1 from the staging is a right thing, it was there a long
> >>> time and it is almost ready.
> >>
> >> No, not almost, it is totally ready. We have bent over backwards to go well
> >> beyond what was in the TODO list. This is a clean, stable, and well
> >> performing driver.
> > 
> > It is your's TODO, not mine.
> 
> No, but Mellanox has been adding to the TODO list, changing the goal
> posts so to speak.  They really *have* bent over backwards to meet the
> TODO requirements and then some.
> 
> >>
> >>> However the timing of this move puzzle me, we are in the process of ABI
> >>> change [1, 2] as a response to security alert [3]. Moves like this with
> >>> proprietary char device and ABI scheme different from whole RDMA stack
> >>> will limit the ABI work without real need.
> >>
> >> The driver sitting in staging or not has no impact on the ABI re-design.
> >> They are two completely separate issues.
> > 
> > Separate char device? IOCTLs per-device vs. global IOCTLs per subsystem?
> > Role of the IB CORE code in the driver management?
> 
> Really Leon?  The qib driver has the *exact* same issue, and it sits out
> of staging.  If moving this driver out of staging somehow stops us from
> making the new ABI while the qib driver not being in staging doesn't
> prevent it, then we are a bunch of idiots.  This would appear to me to
> be a very disingenuous complaint on your part.

Doug,
Did you read my question?

I feel that I need to repeat my main point again: "It is OK to move hfi1 driver
out-of-staging" and repeat the question too: "Will the hfi1 interface
decisions limit our ABI work?".

There is no politics here, just my PERSONAL opinion and believe that ABI work can be
done in months time frame. And again, "It is OK to move hfi1 driver out-of-staging".