From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77309C433F5 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 17:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244948AbiCORde (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:33:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36290 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240568AbiCORdd (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:33:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648725883A for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1647365540; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vIoYTkbN3Ug6dTUhmuqPkv63yNtg6n8OcRSZGx3ZPto=; b=g4a+O2sFhVe1fNLB9X3ukxpCjicfSkITwfA1UudW7h75TYUKWJj+tSoJRx38KqA+Mf1ScX uvbPJ//YtRolA8QjAMsmr0BAuSMy57b8wSMsMj8ZRx61KRi0U1sRfYzR7YX4416izcd8F8 25L5GZz/Vxj4NJgPCaGPwLcmkSvCRjk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-354-DnOvd3EJMken7kVGUZ0rGw-1; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:32:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: DnOvd3EJMken7kVGUZ0rGw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA8A802809; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 17:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.39.194.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6410C404C33F; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 17:32:16 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck To: Alex Williamson , Jason Gunthorpe Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, yishaih@nvidia.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfio-pci: Provide reviewers and acceptance criteria for vendor drivers In-Reply-To: <20220315102200.15a86b16.alex.williamson@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH References: <164728932975.54581.1235687116658126625.stgit@omen> <87a6drh8hy.fsf@redhat.com> <20220315155304.GC11336@nvidia.com> <20220315102200.15a86b16.alex.williamson@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.34 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 18:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87zglrf7fl.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.11.54.1 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 15 2022, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:53:04 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:26:17AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 14 2022, Alex Williamson wrote: >> In general I wonder if this is a bit too specific to PCI, really this >> is just review criteria for any driver making a struct vfio_device_ops >> implementation, and we have some specific guidance for migration here >> as well. >> >> Like if IBM makes s390 migration drivers all of this applies just as >> well even though they are not PCI. > > Are you volunteering to be a reviewer under drivers/vfio/? Careful, > I'll add you ;) > > What you're saying is true of course and it could be argued that this > sort of criteria is true for any new driver, I think the unique thing > here that raises it to a point where we want to formalize the breadth > of reviews is how significantly lower the bar is to create a device > specific driver now that we have a vfio-pci-core library. Shameer's > stub driver is 100 LoC. I also expect that the pool of people willing > to volunteer to be reviewers for PCI related device specific drivers is > large than we might see for arbitrary drivers. Yes. Also, I expect that more people understand how a PCI driver works than how an s390 channel subsystem driver works :) I think we'll just have to hope that attempts to add e.g. migration support to a driver outside of vfio-pci show up on the correct mailing lists and that the right people notice it or can be pointed towards it. > >> > > +New driver submissions are therefore requested to have approval via >> > > +Sign-off/Acked-by/etc for any interactions with parent drivers. >> > >> > s/Sign-off/Reviewed-by/ ? >> > >> > I would not generally expect the reviewers listed to sign off on other >> > people's patches. >> >> It happens quite a lot when those people help write the patches too :) > > This is what "etc" is for, the owners are involved and have endorsed it > in some way, that's all we care about. Fair enough.