Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the target-merge tree

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:03:58AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:52:58AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in
> > > > drivers/staging/Kconfig between commit d0146d396bfa ("tcm_vhost: Initial
> > > > merge for vhost level target fabric driver") from the target-merge tree
> > > > and commit 15a4bc17b7f4 ("Staging: add CSR Wifi "os helper" module") from
> > > > the staging tree.
> > > > 
> > > > Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> > > > necessary.
> > > > -- 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> > > > 
> > > > diff --cc drivers/staging/Kconfig
> > > > index 67ec9fe,e3402d5..0000000
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/Kconfig
> > > > @@@ -132,6 -132,8 +132,10 @@@ source "drivers/staging/ipack/Kconfig
> > > >   
> > > >   source "drivers/staging/gdm72xx/Kconfig"
> > > >   
> > > > + source "drivers/staging/csr/Kconfig"
> > > > + 
> > > > + source "drivers/staging/omap-thermal/Kconfig"
> > > > + 
> > > >  +source "drivers/vhost/Kconfig.tcm"
> > > 
> > > Why is someone putting a non drivers/staging/ Kconfig file here in
> > > drivers/staging/Kconfig?  That's not ok at all.
> > > 
> > > Target people, please just depend on CONFIG_STAGING if you want to do
> > > that, but don't mess with files in the drivers/staging/ directory for no
> > > good reason at all.
> > > 
> > 
> > This was a request from MST (CC'ed) in order to have TCM_VHOST show up
> > under the staging configuration options..
> 
> If you really want it to show up there, then send me a patch adding the
> code to drivers/staging/.  Otherwise it really makes no sense.
> 
> > If that's really not what should be done, I'm happy to drop this part
> > and just use CONFIG_STAGING again.
> 
> Why are you wanting to depend on CONFIG_STAGING in the first place?
> What is wrong with the code that it can't be merged "properly" now?
> Don't use CONFIG_STAGING as a "crutch" unless you really need it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

It's very similar to how it was with nouveau: we are not sure
we can commit to the userspace ABI yet.

Most importantly, it still seems not 100% clear whether this driver will
have major userspace using it. And if not, it would be very hard to
support a driver when recent userspace does not use it in the end.

At the moment arguments on upstream mailing list seem to be
a bit circular: there's no module in upstream kernel so
userspace does not want to accept the patches.

If we put enabling this driver in staging, then it works out in one of
two ways
- userspace starts using it then this effectively freezes the ABI and
  we move it out of staging next release
- no userspace uses it and we drop it completely or rework ABI

On the other hand, it is marginally better to not want code in staging
for two reasons:
- there are dependencies between this code and other code in
  drivers/vhost which are easier for me to handle if it's all
  in one place
- a bit easier to track history if we do not move code

What do you think?

-- 
MST