Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] DirectX on Linux

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:51:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > Having said that, I hit one stumbling block:
>> > "Further, at this time there are no presentation integration. "
>> >
>> > If we upstream this driver as-is into some hyperv specific place, and
>> > you decide to add presentation integration this is more than likely
>> > going to mean you will want to interact with dma-bufs and dma-fences.
>> > If the driver is hidden away in a hyperv place it's likely we won't
>> > even notice that feature landing until it's too late.
>> >
>> > I would like to see a coherent plan for presentation support (not
>> > code, just an architectural diagram), because I think when you
>> > contemplate how that works it will change the picture of how this
>> > driver looks and intergrates into the rest of the Linux graphics
>> > ecosystem.
>> >
>> > As-is I'd rather this didn't land under my purview, since I don't see
>> > the value this adds to the Linux ecosystem at all, and I think it's
>> > important when putting a burden on upstream that you provide some
>> > value.
>>
>> I also have another concern from a legal standpoint I'd rather not
>> review the ioctl part of this. I'd probably request under DRI
>> developers abstain as well.
>>
>> This is a Windows kernel API being smashed into a Linux driver. I don't want to be
>> tainted by knowledge of an API that I've no idea of the legal status of derived works.
>> (it this all covered patent wise under OIN?)
>
>If you can't look onto it, perhaps it is not suitable to merge into kernel...?
>
>What would be legal requirements so this is "safe to look at"? We should really
>require submitter to meet them...

Could you walk me through your view on what the function of the
"Signed-off-by" tag is?

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha