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 47CA7811EB for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:11:02 +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=1713201063; cv=none; b=kNebsxpCsFl+fiziGWHLug++ztWxbONjf6KKG1EZgOoaeXReSzPYWRJyufx3Q8DsMkiE3WNkq1GgmrDNJrQw9Qn4+KKlgxZDGS3u5N6E16/Aqs39k3/V2ruyfqplAYs7xBkTeRyAVfaAX9URE8Iw4z10Lh+Asz55kV8o7LFYHA0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713201063; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rdemyd14lAu4jmBNfIfrIRGyaRWg60bezAiN0bweEQs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QD6Yd9OM4KiuQuqa066nypAEMolSy/yLyzej1SD8F5gThgAEn+zSyQGi2BjbwkYn1AmA01UhkWf9Dwf0K+wFoI2CNCIRRbl6ZSKDZoiAbJl6GVIA5+NTIYWheiA54AY/Q5jco1K9LeVE8VG2qxElGy+M8v4F6uMHU0/Zp4qyZO0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=eIasiNnX; 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="eIasiNnX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95346C113CC; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:11:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1713201062; bh=rdemyd14lAu4jmBNfIfrIRGyaRWg60bezAiN0bweEQs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eIasiNnXv1bl+oIxk2vR7h/qYa4jEs3HFcqCjy3M/RZkVAjrYYPyBBv+Leq57q95q Rbndpc4gyJXuhmxW5+y2CkFUCiSgk5IS9nD2W5wuZrEDVhPWIBkwExFRqp9pIBWbY2 3F90y9VmDiz/6LGYjGqIS4Tc2dLhpC7TMlrAY4gSfPC+F89WOrSSuZ9trXULWk6+Fk 10IgDdstNoAoibEXblV19+yo+MoFr0/0/SYnM3vspXmVpCn5CItnrvQtmeaoC1oAFv Q5LrsxmVwjB/ofzK2NS3f0IL93CSzuiWJIz3pORk4gtoHoNGfyFOSraPr+QyCKJr7I 1Q7fMc4Wirr0g== Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:11:01 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Yunsheng Lin , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck , davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 13/15] eth: fbnic: add basic Rx handling Message-ID: <20240415101101.3dd207c4@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <171217454226.1598374.8971335637623132496.stgit@ahduyck-xeon-server.home.arpa> <171217496013.1598374.10126180029382922588.stgit@ahduyck-xeon-server.home.arpa> <41a39896-480b-f08d-ba67-17e129e39c0f@huawei.com> <53b80db6-f2bc-d824-ea42-4b2ac64625f2@huawei.com> <0e5e3196-ca2f-b905-a6ba-7721e8586ed7@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:03:38 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > The advantage of being a purpose built driver is that we aren't > > > running on any architectures where the PAGE_SIZE > 4K. If it came to > > > > I am not sure if 'being a purpose built driver' argument is strong enough > > here, at least the Kconfig does not seems to be suggesting it is a purpose > > built driver, perhaps add a 'depend on' to suggest that? > > I'm not sure if you have been following the other threads. One of the > general thoughts of pushback against this driver was that Meta is > currently the only company that will have possession of this NIC. As > such Meta will be deciding what systems it goes into and as a result > of that we aren't likely to be running it on systems with 64K pages. Didn't take long for this argument to float to the surface.. We tried to write some rules with Paolo but haven't published them, yet. Here is one that may be relevant: 3. External contributions ------------------------- Owners of drivers for private devices must not exhibit a stronger sense of ownership or push back on accepting code changes from members of the community. 3rd party contributions should be evaluated and eventually accepted, or challenged only on technical arguments based on the code itself. In particular, the argument that the owner is the only user and therefore knows best should not be used. Not exactly a contribution, but we predicted the "we know best" tone of the argument :(