Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:24 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        KVM General <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support

On 19/05/21 14:23, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> - the code could be removed if there's no progress on either changing the
>> RISC-V acceptance policy or ratifying the spec
> 
> I really do not understand the issue here, why can this just not be
> merged normally?

Because the RISC-V people only want to merge code for "frozen" or 
"ratified" processor extensions, and the RISC-V foundation is dragging 
their feet in ratifying the hypervisor extension.

It's totally a self-inflicted pain on part of the RISC-V maintainers; 
see Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst:

   We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
   specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
   "Frozen" or "Ratified" by the RISC-V Foundation.  (Developers may, of
   course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for
   any draft extensions that they wish.)

(Link: 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst)

> All staging drivers need a TODO list that shows what needs to be done in
> order to get it out of staging.  All I can tell so far is that the riscv
> maintainers do not want to take this for "unknown reasons" so let's dump
> it over here for now where we don't have to see it.
> 
> And that's not good for developers or users, so perhaps the riscv rules
> are not very good?

I agree wholeheartedly.

I have heard contrasting opinions on conflict of interest where the 
employers of the maintainers benefit from slowing down the integration 
of code in Linus's tree.  I find these allegations believable, but even 
if that weren't the case, the policy is (to put it kindly) showing its 
limits.

>> Of course there should have been a TODO file explaining the situation. But
>> if you think this is not the right place, I totally understand; if my
>> opinion had any weight in this, I would just place it in arch/riscv/kvm.
>>
>> The RISC-V acceptance policy as is just doesn't work, and the fact that
>> people are trying to work around it is proving it.  There are many ways to
>> improve it:
> 
> What is this magical acceptance policy that is preventing working code
> from being merged?  And why is it suddenly the rest of the kernel
> developer's problems because of this?

It is my problem because I am trying to help Anup merging some perfectly 
good KVM code; when a new KVM port comes up, I coordinate merging the 
first arch/*/kvm bits with the arch/ maintainers and from that point on 
that directory becomes "mine" (or my submaintainers').

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists