From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-vk1-f171.google.com (mail-vk1-f171.google.com [209.85.221.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD18B3FD0 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id s125so3603780vkd.4 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cuyP4Y8XfTngDxn29BQzBWdn9DZaO3pf10OU5V2t5OQ=; b=0wBSnygm7JTsUWD2U9MBpUDRXwUFbuEcOZyZfpRUIPIaY97LuWe9XQwRuMvNIHKX2c KkVWyjqyq5MpQ5rj68SRKgGNiVdx3i5z8/dvlN0SAOhma7tua59UWw875dvjEH/FFrlD a2h2ukpa4EJb4QaVuhIcivVVhEqJmWJvW6MO4IqpvVLqhjLjPLd35XsB74uqO50KQ1dn 6X96NoynVpwM+UUTJbnDFnqXyAkD8aNSuc9RCeaH5golrixP5KHpgPBncAvd/ssS/AQj yVC/w2pKTb0lzPxsrcoyWlbjut+ddsVOAlowQ4lapvqhkk74m5/8ajJxJsDrb7OL0XYa 7cRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zcvauvwGw0348y9L8uBEbcOlAPJgv0SE60/Ko6OUv9DdYGDWb 3UCXZ+2UN7S8HH9M3Ao2Vgd8HmX55pYaH2FRfIM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzajWkRhciOSkaNyfs2ZCQ8chTQeiis1Qp/oen2vHErXMl/rNFMHXO9xDGJjVMrETKRybDso7kRypnSnkGr8es= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9743:: with SMTP id z64mr304011vkd.15.1631632228819; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <877dfop2lx.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <878rzz2pby.fsf@intel.com> <875yv32oev.fsf@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <875yv32oev.fsf@intel.com> From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:10:15 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] User-space requirements for accelerator drivers To: Jani Nikula Cc: Josh Triplett , Jonathan Corbet , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Jani, On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:00 PM Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:40 PM Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 03:00:58PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > >> >> - What constitutes an acceptable user-space implementation in cases > >> >> where these restrictions apply? > >> > > >> > This seems like it'll always be a fuzzy line. The main issue: it's OK if > >> > there are both open and proprietary users, but it's not OK if the only > >> > open implementation is an outdated or token project that nobody actually > >> > uses, that exists and is maintained solely for the purposes of placating > >> > the kernel requirement. There's no easy way to define that line, other > >> > than "we'll know it when we see it". > >> > >> One aspect of it should be easy enough: If you have an issue with your > >> proprietary stack, but you can't reproduce it with the open stack, you > >> won't get your fix in the kernel. > > > > Which basically boils down to the old mantra: before fixing a bug, > > first add a new test case to trigger the bug. > > Oh, but then the question becomes, is it enough to add a reproducer, > simplified from your proprietary stack, in your test asset, and then fix > the kernel issue? Even if it's not a problem in your open stack at all? I was thinking test ~ open stack. I.e. enhance the open stack to reproduce the issue. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds