Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)

Greg KH
2008-10-09T21:11:51Z

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:01:37AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > As we all discussed at the Kernel Summit this past week, I said I would
> > create a drivers/staging directory and start throwing lots of drivers
> > that are not of "mergable" status into it.
> >...
> > The 3rd patch creates the drivers/staging/ directory and Kconfig entries
> > and adds it to the build system.
> >
> > The 4th patch is an example of a driver that would go into this
> > directory, along with a driver_name.README file detailing what needs to
> > be done to this driver for cleanup/fixing, and who to contact about it.
> > It's also in such bad shape it doesn't even build against the kernel
> > kernel :)
> >
> > (I'll fix that up before submitting, all drivers should at least build
> > properly...)
> >
> > So, does this all look good to everyone? Any questions/issues?
> >
> > Oh, I guess I should add a MAINTAINER entry for this section of the
> > kernel, so to paraphrase Linus, I now get to be known as the "Maintainer
> > of Crap".
>
> Sorry for being late in the discussion, I'm currently catching up with
> my email backlog.
>
> What does that mean in practice for kernel development?

Nothing.

> Will breaking crap be considered OK?

Yes.

> As an example, let's assume some crap drivers use the BKL in a way that
> it might require the BKL in some core part of the kernel. Will the
> person removing the BKL in the core part of the kernel be forced to fix
> the locking of all possibly affected crap drivers no matter how broken
> and undocumented it is, or can he simply ignore the crap and leave the
> fixing to the Maintainer of Crap?

He can ignore the crap and leave the fixing to the Maintainer of Crap.

Although a short note to the Maintainer of Crap about the crap that
needs fixing in the tree of crap, would be polite, it is not required.

thanks,

greg "surrounded by crap" k-h