Re: Why set .suppress_bind_attrs even though .remove() implemented?

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:30:40 +0100,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:25:26 +0100,
> > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 08:50:11AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:23:35 +0100,
> > > > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > So can we proceed with the series making Qcom driver modular?
> > > > 
> > > > Who is volunteering to fix the drivers that will invariably explode
> > > > once we allow this?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Why should anyone volunteer first up? If the issue gets reported for a driver
> > > blowing up, then the driver has to be fixed by the maintainer or someone, just
> > > like any other bug.
> > 
> > You are introducing a new behaviour, and decide that it is fair game
> > to delegate the problems *you* introduced to someone else?
> >
> 
> You are getting it completely wrong. I'm not delegating any issues. If the so
> called *new* behavior in the controller driver uncovers the bug in a client
> driver, then that is not called *delegating*.
> 
> > Maybe you should reconsider what it means to be a *responsible*
> > maintainer.
> > 
> 
> Sure, by not providing a development option useful to the users envisioning
> issues that may not happen at all.
> 
> Even if any issue reported for the platform I'm maintaining, I am willing to put
> in the efforts to fix them.
> 
> > > From reading the thread, the major concern was disposing the IRQs before
> > > removing the domain and that is now taken care of. If you are worrying about a
> > > specific issue, please say so.
> > 
> > That concern still exists, and I haven't seen a *consistent* approach
> > encompassing all of the PCI controllers. What I've seen is a bunch of
> > point hacks addressing a local issue on a particular implementation.
> > 
> 
> Again, please be specific about your concern so that someone could try to
> address them. Right now all I'm hearing is, "hey don't do this, else
> something may blow up".

You know what? Have it your way. After all, this sort of behaviour is
exactly why I stopped dealing with this subsystem.

> 
> > I don't think that's the correct approach, but hey, what do I
> > understand about interrupts and kernel maintenance?
> > 
> 
> I'd like to quote the message in your signature here: "Without deviation from
> the norm, progress is not possible".

You should look up who wrote this, and appreciate *why* they wrote it,
and what they meant by that. That should put some of the above in
perspective.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.