Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

Leon Romanovsky
2024-07-09T12:47:34Z

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:33:17PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:25:47PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:01:06PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 03:26:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > > It sets common expectations for
> > > > device designers, distribution maintainers, and kernel developers. It is
> > > > complimentary to the Linux-command path for operations that need deeper
> > > > kernel coordination.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's a good start, BUT by circumventing the network control plane,
> > > the network driver maintainers rightfully are worried about this as
> > > their review comments seem to be ignored here. The rest of us
> > > maintainers can't ignore that objection, sorry.
> >
> > Can you please point to the TECHNICAL review comments that were
> > presented and later ignored?
>
> I can't remember review comments that were made yesterday, let alone
> months ago, sorry.

So I will summarize the situation for you. There are NO technical review
comments from netdev maintainer (not plural maintainers). The difference
is philosophical and not technical.

And yes, "rest of us maintainers" can ignore philosophical objections.
At the end, Linux kernel is distributed open-source project with
different people who have different opinions.

Thanks

>
> greg k-h