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

Jiri Pirko
2024-04-11T06:31:39Z

Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:03:54AM CEST, jacob.e.keller@intel.com wrote:
>
>
>On 4/10/2024 12:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:29:57 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> +1, also first idea that came to mind but I was too afraid
>> of bike shedding to mention it :) Fingers crossed? :)
>>
>
>+1, I think putting it in MAINTAINERS makes a lot of sense.

Well, how exactly you imagine to do this? I have no problem using
MAINTAINERS for this, I was thinking about that too, but I could not
figure out the way it would work. Having driver directory is much more
obvious, person cooking up a patch sees that immediatelly. Do you look
at MAINTAINTERS file when you do some driver API changing patch/ any
patch? I certainly don't (not counting get_maintainers sctipt).