Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] include: Move includes copied from the Linux kernel into include/linux

["Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>]

Hello Oliver,

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:34:23PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 21.01.2014 10:53, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >> On 17.01.2014 21:36, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > I don't see a real reason here, but I read between the lines that you
> > prefer isotp to go into the kernel directly instead of into can-utils
> > first.
> 
> We obviously have different ways to think/discuss :-(
> 
> - Yes, isotp is intended for mainline
> - isotp.h will not change when it goes into mainline
> - therefore can-utils can rely on the existing isotp.h
> - therefore isotp.h can stay together with other includes in can-utils
> 
> IMO it does not make sense to kick out the isotp tools just because of the
> fact that isotp is not in mainline today.
Note I didn't intend to kick out the isotp stuff, I only questioned if
it's sensible to keep the isotp header seperate from the vanilla kernel
headers. And here seperate doesn't mean in a different repository but in
a different path in the same repository.

I think techically it doesn't matter much if there is a single directory
with includes or if there are two of them. Then the only difference I
see is that it's easier to sync with the kernel if you just do something
like

	cd can-utils
	rm some/directory
	cp -a /path/to/kernel/some/directory

and then don't have to fixup because can-utils' includes contain in
some/directory a header you have to restore afterwards because it's not
part of the kernel. You probably know better if that is a relevant point
or not. It depends e.g. on answers to the questions:
 - When will isotp be part of the kernel?
 - How often do you have to sync the linux headers into can-utils?

Well, up to you.

> > Anyhow, what I care for is to be able to package can-utils for Debian.
> 
> Yes. That would be nice indeed.
> 
> > That's what I can do once the updated headers hit can-utils so IMO we
> > can stop arguing even if we don't agree 100%.
> 
> I hope I was able to focus the discussion some lines before. Don't know if
> it's worth the effort to kick out the isotp stuff and merge it later on.
I would be surprised if that is sensible and as I hope to got clear now
that's not what I intended to suggest.
 
> > @Marc or Oliver: Can you please give me a ping as soon as the headers
> > hit your public repo. Thanks.
> 
> Indeed I would vote for your latest patch set (v5) as the only missing thing
> there would be to move isotp.h from include/socketcan/can/isotp.h to
> include/linux/can/isotp.h and delete the socketcan directory then.
> 
> In Marcs patch set (v6) the license updates got lost at some point.
The license updates were not included in my v5 IIRC either. I talked to
Marc earlier today and he said to care for application of v6 + a header
sync.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |