From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ua1-f47.google.com (mail-ua1-f47.google.com [209.85.222.47]) (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 26C2B3FD0 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f47.google.com with SMTP id g16so8799734uam.7 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:45:15 -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=bwVy2Yyiis0YTJPnjwfesUxwkKegdjA26+2JPFiXlNA=; b=1MkpiY6S2V6QkuvGUcX4w61TrTSRD0NvR93J0SGNx2h6vLZ191bt3qp0YAyNOmJRWH rhy7U3vMfxt281uMjxuJmaOCjq4HYnCZZe8m6RfWeVgt+hM0D1WExvhKTld0djWClh1O uPWaJc5mA46tpRmAy4nwAraR6KBhKe0c1R0U1ki555/5SskCBDjhEIBZqSMJvSiDFabu ONsSI1L22kCYQV99pDVtw4PoSSKwHTlMoLU4eLLWKRzycKSGHdzHA3r+om46Fq/kRV5o oGnGvhzMXr+HdFXA9JN9LX5ACdO9xvkUSO4a3SmhZGHYuxSY2M4Q6F9wxzjYQsM/TQES ++OA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cREoRnKfOsaIOcfBhHfvqw4TbyPI6ORVWgUwrarNLf4P3TuoA jG4hZpgQKubvJLgZbc6mjsS1TQvNDYrWq2K7vug= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwS1s9MfeAhlUlJbfjtg+MmvWooLwOyLjQPgNiiB+0a5tLw1oW5BeqtNX9sP5tM0aJ0JP1DVgPBpe/v23JDYCU= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:35aa:: with SMTP id t39mr4490656uad.89.1631630713398; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:45:13 -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> In-Reply-To: <878rzz2pby.fsf@intel.com> From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:45:01 +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 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 open implementation is an outdated or token project that nobody actually 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. 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