From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27F93FD0 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:59:58 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10106"; a="283018559" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,292,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="283018559" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2021 07:59:58 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,292,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="544113105" Received: from lveltman-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.251.216.6]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2021 07:59:55 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Josh Triplett , Jonathan Corbet , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] User-space requirements for accelerator drivers In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <877dfop2lx.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <878rzz2pby.fsf@intel.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:59:52 +0300 Message-ID: <875yv32oev.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Jani, > > 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 open implementation is an outdated or token project that nobody actually 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? BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center