From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 328CD19C546 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2026 07:35:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775892958; cv=none; b=Wb4/5aIqyaZflAxSQvfC/Auk47auJKQR8Vvz/Q4PwDM9cL4QbC+yYmNRfSmZPmLTYK56e1jdMgcT3Zkqll7XVafkl0K0Vyq5k3zu4fgP3fasbvI9cy/oXFn0blW5UcVQll78bnsIklm0s0Ho3FfBAYa7Izsy1rhNe+kr7dyRPRs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775892958; c=relaxed/simple; bh=45DL5i4aFxBsN844QSfZKyAMaVvEDeLrwcZVp4HVEhQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Content-Type; b=ZGTgAfVx7LbV3QiqhzxR93eYU2Z3KUbLzTKmRB4CI2odJuopgvN0997w7cMSaK2kjckIeaA8QHiD936tKa5RSx5ARxHdddQNUPabdJ+efbKsYmA5COJ3BO+ABfql3NNhjhy0x9tTD3NYwGTvNnpWfj5m4wGQprrGmb+3pjB9SZI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=blemings.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=blemings.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blemings.org header.i=@blemings.org header.b=d9VFBn7m; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=blemings.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=blemings.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blemings.org header.i=@blemings.org header.b="d9VFBn7m" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blemings.org; s=202501; t=1775892955; bh=ZxeObIjNiHxPxr2zQdH6ockY4/jNU8NeIH3s1eQDbO8=; h=Date:From:Subject:Reply-To:To:From; b=d9VFBn7mIGFZ+jIdpcIcDpWA2Oy1afb1tcToV3GHp5hO2K+f08tzFgDaCr6XFaQy/ X4uPENuQxtH3eTSmRtFwXWZKsVuZFz/jxFX9pVaaeZGK5w1zlYj32dwH5UHRwLjbSp 6yub1pDOb5OC8r+uvLr6yfXovm1hLCtYwiKcPQd41yreudIlIss+kCiKktbrGE5zBL Rx783iudNlsbWIZEGq0R8JvOTMO7E5IuryekP0zqtLNf/Zz0onc7gEc9vM5TjwbgqO 2yyPuD3pWG6i4ck4hfvRenKPoRPVuM/4BG+l+iGMjt4ECP6zZ55rFdrJhP2IKx9QgS z/UxIke5Z6Eyw== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ft57b5ndgz4wJ2 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2026 17:35:55 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <54da3df9-6c91-4df0-87ff-1975d536761d@blemings.org> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 17:35:55 +1000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Hugh Blemings Subject: Discuss: Future of AX25, NETROM and ROSE in the kernel ? Reply-To: hugh@blemings.id.au To: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Long time lurker, (nearly) first time poster as the saying goes[0]. My email here seeks to see that we, as a technical community, navigate a potentially tricky point in the hobbies presence in the Linux kernel as well as possible.  I've a decent long term view of the matters at hand, but lack a good "current" picture[1]. There's a thread[2] that kicked off, primarily in linux-hams that initially focused on bug fixes in the Netrom code. This has broadened into a discussion about the future of the AX25, NETROM and ROSE code in the kernel. A couple of well respected mainline kernel maintainers have noted the maintenance overhead of these (relatively) lightly used protocols. This has led to, quite reasonably I think, some discussion of whether they should be removed or deprecated - the perception being they're not used much. Note that none of this a judgement on the hobby itself or the utility to the broader community. There's also been some very good points raised in that thread by hams around whether it makes sense to move the implementation into userspace or to out of tree kernel code. Both can be done in such a way as to cause little to no impact from the actual application code that makes use of the protocols. My intuition is that we probably have folks here on linux-vger that have the requisite skills and reputation, or ability to gain them, to keep the in tree drivers up to date. But perhaps that's just "old" thinking on my part? So I figure a thread here to discuss how we go forward made some sense - stay with the current in kernel model, look to go oot or userspace. If the consensus is that trying to keep the drivers in thee tree up to date is the way ahead I'm happy to put my hand up to do this if no one else is so inclined - I've a couple friends I can bug to help me get back up to speed. But I'm also mindful there are other hams that have been more recently involved in kernel work, so am going to give them a gentle nudge offline too :) Cheers/73, Hugh VK3YYZ/AD5RV [0] First licensed in the late 80's and can even remember the smell and sound of a Model 33 teletype connected to a TNC :) [1] Installed Slackware in the early 90's and never fully recovered, some of my code still in the kernel to this day :) [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hams/761f83cc-58eb-4b4a-ba91-d11412e7b2a6@gmail.com/T/#t -- I am slowly moving tohugh@blemings.id.au as my main email address. If you're usinghugh@blemings.org please update your address book accordingly. Thank you :)