Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:01:44PM CEST, alexander.duyck@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:56 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:39:11 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> > > Hm, we currently group by vendor but the fact it's a private device
>> > > is probably more important indeed. For example if Google submits
>> > > a driver for a private device it may be confusing what's public
>> > > cloud (which I think/hope GVE is) and what's fully private.
>> > >
>> > > So we could categorize by the characteristic rather than vendor:
>> > >
>> > > drivers/net/ethernet/${term}/fbnic/
>> > >
>> > > I'm afraid it may be hard for us to agree on an accurate term, tho.
>> > > "Unused" sounds.. odd, we don't keep unused code, "private"
>> > > sounds like we granted someone special right not took some away,
>> > > maybe "exclusive"? Or "besteffort"? Or "staging" :D  IDK.
>> >
>> > Do we really need that categorization at the directory/filesystem level?
>> > cannot we just document it clearly in the Kconfig help text and under
>> > Documentation/networking/?
>>
>> From the reviewer perspective I think we will just remember.
>> If some newcomer tries to do refactoring they may benefit from seeing
>> this is a special device and more help is offered. Dunno if a newcomer
>> would look at the right docs.
>>
>> Whether it's more "paperwork" than we'll actually gain, I have no idea.
>> I may not be the best person to comment.
>
>Are we going to go through and retro-actively move some of the drivers
>that are already there that are exclusive to specific companies? That
>is the bigger issue as I see it. It has already been brought up that

Why is it an issue? Very easy to move drivers to this new directory.


>idpf is exclusive. In addition several other people have reached out
>to me about other devices that are exclusive to other organizations.
>
>I don't see any value in it as it would just encourage people to lie
>in order to avoid being put in what would essentially become a
>blacklisted directory.

You are thinking all or nothing. I'd say that if we have 80% of such
drivers in the correct place/directory, it's a win. The rest will lie.
Shame for them when it is discovered.


>
>If we are going to be trying to come up with some special status maybe
>it makes sense to have some status in the MAINTAINERS file that would
>indicate that this driver is exclusive to some organization and not
>publicly available so any maintenance would have to be proprietary.