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

Florian Fainelli
2024-04-10T18:30:04Z

On 4/10/2024 11:01 AM, Alexander Duyck 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
> 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.

Agreed.

>
> 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.

I like that idea.
--
Florian