linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/doc: Allow new UAPI to be used once it's in the driver's -next.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPM=9tw59Z7FRM-7-_VChOO__1+ahNhSs6=AceV7biasHjWKqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:16:50 +1000
From:   Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:     Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/doc: Allow new UAPI to be used once it's in the
 driver's -next.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 05:35, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:56:16AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > I was trying to figure out if it was permissible to merge the Mesa
> > side of V3D's CSD support yet while it's in drm-misc-next but not
> > drm-next, and developers on #dri-devel IRC had differing opinions of
> > what the requirement was.  Propose a clarification here to see if Dave
> > Airlie agrees.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
> > ---
> >
> > Personally, I thought the rule was "has to be in drm-next", but
> > assuming our review processes aren't totally broken, this should be
> > enough.
>
> Yeah if you end up with a revert on your hands the process failed much
> harder and you get to keep the pieces no matter what. Not sure we should
> clarify whether you need a stable sha1 or not (helps with cross
> referencing uapi header updates), but imo good as is. And matches what
> I've been doing/recommending past few years.
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
>
> >
> >  Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > index c9fd23efd957..8e5545dfbf82 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > @@ -92,8 +92,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
> >    requirements by doing a quick fork.
> >
> >  - The kernel patch can only be merged after all the above requirements are met,
> > -  but it **must** be merged **before** the userspace patches land. uAPI always flows
> > -  from the kernel, doing things the other way round risks divergence of the uAPI
> > +  but it **must** be merged to the driver's -next tree (as documented in
> > +  MAINTAINERS) **before** the userspace patches land. uAPI always flows from
> > +  the kernel, doing things the other way round risks divergence of the uAPI
> >    definitions and header files.

I'd rather restrict this to drm-next and drm-misc-next, I frankly
don't trust driver trees here to have the review practices in place.

I trust drm-misc-next to have at least had someone unrelated look over
the new api.

Dave.