From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A36479FE; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 06:18:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712557131; cv=none; b=CXg9iTmBP2PYXlDjhQfVW5Tu60488x0+PPcs5hQ+wpeifkHubip7pJ7+aKUOiTt10/DVzV3saIPCjV1WmZf6TdDfALcmf76ypM61vX/22dtCk8wphgks/Wg5OvE55uT/FEfQNrUCiVAkQPO3xzFzoNsirbXwIUlbgAu6fY1gpbM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712557131; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DIuA8oFwm/vpb38UIq95JDqRuLtIzxfyMX4vnoI6NeY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rLAFt78N5T+ABg2OYiI9cIPiWOcbip+SKtsANu42jJxx+nF+a0GYRIyuLg0OZBIea1EOya6L6XnXVobu7nVoIho9h1W8Do0om6WEGT3CjJcfBnQRpHD90F1zyX4d2QNE8+08vxfk/FHAbLAggGaX8TAYdUEMMPvZKo6WiNuErXw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=MlOndreW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="MlOndreW" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BC4AC433F1; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 06:18:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1712557130; bh=DIuA8oFwm/vpb38UIq95JDqRuLtIzxfyMX4vnoI6NeY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MlOndreWiIQHypWltN1SBSVOe0uo7bN2o4w2w2hIhozWzGK/7D9L3GyKt8BGqh40n XqQZeDmuyHtFLAeLQknY5Vv2tU9ibBrLM77CUPg/kmRtdGsI9OHtd53KCRJdFN6o5J DFxHHuRjTD1OzaOYHaS5ia9o99el5EdwmurHqyc5rTEXbSnR8zGHdORqdO17M9H1wH ePfbRVfGIUfuXKeIx6easXKTi3oE0VQzPxUfvf5R4txiUdRr93FjvaQBLfJ4015y6V jKYLpkc2P+p24BKmpysS7KJ0VgUvFMCjhIUmQt+B3qkvpTyoRCwtIR4TAkiiKqi+ju qJlGRVUB+J1qA== Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:18:46 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Jakub Kicinski , John Fastabend , Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck , davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface Message-ID: <20240408061846.GA8764@unreal> References: <20240404132548.3229f6c8@kernel.org> <660f22c56a0a2_442282088b@john.notmuch> <20240404165000.47ce17e6@kernel.org> <20240404193817.500523aa@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:41:11AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 7:38 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: <...> > > > > Technical solution? Maybe if it's not a public device regression rules > > > > don't apply? Seems fairly reasonable. > > > > > > This is a hypothetical. This driver currently isn't changing anything > > > outside of itself. At this point the driver would only be build tested > > > by everyone else. They could just not include it in their Kconfig and > > > then out-of-sight, out-of-mind. > > > > Not changing does not mean not depending on existing behavior. > > Investigating and fixing properly even the hardest regressions in > > the stack is a bar that Meta can so easily clear. I don't understand > > why you are arguing. > > I wasn't saying the driver wouldn't be dependent on existing behavior. > I was saying that it was a hypothetical that Meta would be a "less > than cooperative user" and demand a revert. It is also a hypothetical > that Linus wouldn't just propose a revert of the fbnic driver instead > of the API for the crime of being a "less than cooperative maintainer" > and then give Meta the Nvidia treatment. It is very easy to be "less than cooperative maintainer" in netdev world. 1. Be vendor. 2. Propose ideas which are different. 3. Report for user-visible regression. 4. Ask for a fix from the patch author or demand a revert according to netdev rules/practice. And voilà, you are "less than cooperative maintainer". So in reality, the "hypothetical" is very close to the reality, unless Meta contribution will be treated as a special case. Thanks