Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> 
>>>Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
>>>too large and the vger server munched it.
>>
>>As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
> 
> 
> we are currently thinking about changing the sign-off chain for the s390
> network patches. Dave suggested that they should go through your hands.
> If that is ok with you the new sign-off chain would be Frank Pavlic,
> Jeff Garzik, Bitkeeper. This would solve two problems:
> 1) Frank would create the patches and since he knows much more about
>    linux networking then I do, hopefully the patches and the descriptions
>    will improve (and you can probably teach him to send the patches to
>    netdev instead of linux-net).
> 2) The patches won't just slip in anymore but get a real review.

That's OK with me.  As an example, on the MIPS side of things, Ralf 
sends most MIPS stuff straight to Linus, but I queue all his 
drivers/net/* patches into my queue, and that gets submitted separately 
(though just as rapidly) upstream with other net driver changes.

I certainly do recognize that qeth, in particular, is a network driver 
unlike all others in the kernel ;-)

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Andrew Morton]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
>  > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, richtera@us.ibm.com
>  > 
>  > 	[PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
>  > 	
>  > 	Add support for claw network devices.
>  > 	
>  > 	Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
>  > 	Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
>  > 	Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
> 
>  Grumpity grump grump grump.  How tough is it to send new net drivers to 
>  netdev and me for review?

Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> >  > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, richtera@us.ibm.com
> >  > 
> >  > 	[PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
> >  > 	
> >  > 	Add support for claw network devices.
> >  > 	
> >  > 	Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> >  > 	Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> >  > 	Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
> > 
> >  Grumpity grump grump grump.  How tough is it to send new net drivers to 
> >  netdev and me for review?
> 
> Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
> too large and the vger server munched it.

As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jörn Engel]

On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...

Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists?  Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.

Jörn

-- 
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of
his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full
humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. 
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists?  Especially if
> one of them is the Wrong One.

<shrug>

linux-net is mostly dead.  I get the impression it is occasionally used 
by users.

netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers 
hang out.

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jörn Engel]

On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> >Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists?  Especially if
> >one of them is the Wrong One.
> 
> <shrug>
> 
> linux-net is mostly dead.  I get the impression it is occasionally used 
> by users.
> 
> netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers 
> hang out.

Ok, I figured as much.  But then, why is linux-net not just deleted?
Bouncing mails would be an indication that noone will read them,
right?

Jörn

-- 
There's nothing better for promoting creativity in a medium than
making an audience feel "Hmm ­ I could do better than that!"
-- Douglas Adams in a slashdot interview

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>Jörn Engel wrote:
>>
>>>Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists?  Especially if
>>>one of them is the Wrong One.
>>
>><shrug>
>>
>>linux-net is mostly dead.  I get the impression it is occasionally used 
>>by users.
>>
>>netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers 
>>hang out.
> 
> 
> Ok, I figured as much.  But then, why is linux-net not just deleted?
> Bouncing mails would be an indication that noone will read them,
> right?

<shrug>  It doesn't matter that much to me.  If you want to undertake 
the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :)

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jörn Engel]

On Tue, 29 March 2005 17:44:33 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> <shrug>  It doesn't matter that much to me.  If you want to undertake 
> the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :)

At least it weakens your position when you state "Random newbie John
Doe failed to pick the correct list, so I never saw his requests for
review."

And yes, I'd like to see linux-net either used, removed or simply
forwarded to netdev.

Jörn

-- 
Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent.
-- Sun Tzu

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >>As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
> >
> >
> >Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists?  Especially if
> >one of them is the Wrong One.
> 
> <shrug>
> 
> linux-net is mostly dead.  I get the impression it is occasionally used 
> by users.
> 
> netdev (as, perhaps, the name implies) is where the network developers 
> hang out.

Eh...

pavel@Elf:~/bin$ grep linux-net /usr/src/linux/MAINTAINERS
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
pavel@Elf:~/bin$

More importantly, it is still listed as "the list" for network
drivers...

NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS
P:      Andrew Morton
M:      akpm@osdl.org
P:      Jeff Garzik
M:      jgarzik@pobox.com
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
S:      Maintained

NETWORKING [GENERAL]
P:      Networking Team
M:      netdev@oss.sgi.com
L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
S:      Maintained

							Pavel

-- 
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jörn Engel]

On Fri, 8 April 2005 22:16:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> More importantly, it is still listed as "the list" for network
> drivers...
> 
> NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS
> P:      Andrew Morton
> M:      akpm@osdl.org
> P:      Jeff Garzik
> M:      jgarzik@pobox.com
> L:      linux-net@vger.kernel.org
> S:      Maintained

Maybe one of the two maintainers might want to change that? ;)

Jörn

-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> >  > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, richtera@us.ibm.com
> >  > 
> >  > 	[PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
> >  > 	
> >  > 	Add support for claw network devices.
> >  > 	
> >  > 	Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> >  > 	Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> >  > 	Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
> > 
> >  Grumpity grump grump grump.  How tough is it to send new net drivers to 
> >  netdev and me for review?
> 
> Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
> too large and the vger server munched it.

This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
net driver merged?

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Andrew Morton]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>  > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
>  > too large and the vger server munched it.
> 
>  This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
>  net driver merged?

Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list,
obviously.

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
>> > too large and the vger server munched it.
>>
>> This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
>> net driver merged?
> 
> 
> Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list,
> obviously.

That's ducking the question.  Let me rephrase.

Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK?

For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent.  You are quite skilled 
at poking random hackers :)  why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? 
  It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) 
desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack 
of review was OK.

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Andrew Morton]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
> >> > too large and the vger server munched it.
> >>
> >> This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
> >> net driver merged?
> > 
> > 
> > Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list,
> > obviously.
> 
> That's ducking the question.  Let me rephrase.
> 
> Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK?

That's not uncommon.  I don't ask people "are you reading the mailing list
which you should be reading" unless I think it's someone who doesn't read
the mailing lists which they should be reading.

> For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent.  You are quite skilled 
> at poking random hackers :)  why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? 

In this case I didn't think about it very hard, sorry - figured it was s390
stuff and it hence falls under the "if it breaks, it's the s390 team's
problem" exemption.

>   It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) 
> desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack 
> of review was OK.

True.  But it's not as if we can't fix stuff up after it's merged up.  The
reasons for holding off on a merge would be:

a) We're not sure that the feature should be merged at all

b) Holding off on a merge is a tool we use to motivate the submitter to
   fix the code up

c) The merge breaks existing stuff.

I don't think any of those things apply here.  The only downside is the
increased bk patch volume.

That being said, if there had been review comments I would have delayed the
merge.

Re: [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver

[Jeff Garzik]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
>>>>>too large and the vger server munched it.
>>>>
>>>>This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
>>>>net driver merged?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because nobody noticed that it didn't make it to the mailing list,
>>>obviously.
>>
>>That's ducking the question.  Let me rephrase.
>>
>>Why was a complete lack of response judged to be an ACK?
> 
> 
> That's not uncommon.  I don't ask people "are you reading the mailing list
> which you should be reading" unless I think it's someone who doesn't read
> the mailing lists which they should be reading.
> 
> 
>>For new drivers, that's a -horrible- precedent.  You are quite skilled 
>>at poking random hackers :)  why not poke somebody to ack a new drivers? 
> 
> 
> In this case I didn't think about it very hard, sorry - figured it was s390
> stuff and it hence falls under the "if it breaks, it's the s390 team's
> problem" exemption.

Yeah, and I -am- sympathetic to that sort of thing.  I just feel really 
strongly that we need to have a higher-than-normal barrier for new code.

It may be an S/390 driver, but Jeff's Law of Bad Code states "where 
there is bad code, it will be copied."  Propagating the 2.2.x-era 
'tbusy' flag to yet more drivers is something I absolutely do not want 
to happen.

I also feel that we have shifted from a "Linus doesn't scale" problem to 
an "akpm doesn't scale" problem.  As much work as you put it (lots!), 
you can't possibly be expected to review all the new drivers and such.

I would prefer a "new driver must be acked by at least one non-author" 
rule.  We need -some- barrier to entry.  If that rule is OK with others, 
I'm quite willing to do that for my areas like libata.


>>  It's not like this driver (or many of the other new drivers) 
>>desperately need to get into the kernel ASAP, so desperate that a lack 
>>of review was OK.
> 
> 
> True.  But it's not as if we can't fix stuff up after it's merged up.  The
> reasons for holding off on a merge would be:
> 
> a) We're not sure that the feature should be merged at all
> 
> b) Holding off on a merge is a tool we use to motivate the submitter to
>    fix the code up
> 
> c) The merge breaks existing stuff.
> 
> I don't think any of those things apply here.  The only downside is the
> increased bk patch volume.

In general, I have supported your philosophy of accelerated upstreaming 
of code.  I just worry about going too far, and this driver was a 
case-in-point.

As Linus and others have pointed out many times in the past, there is no 
harm in -not- upstreaming code until it is "ready."  Our current system 
of maintainers/lieutenants is sufficiently distributed as to allow this.

	Jeff