linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Add p2p via dmabuf to habanalabs

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: <20210706122110.GA18273@lst.de>
Date:   Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:21:10 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sumit.semwal@...aro.org,
        christian.koenig@....com, galpress@...zon.com, sleybo@...zon.com,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jgg@...pe.ca,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dledford@...hat.com, airlied@...il.com, alexander.deucher@....com,
        leonro@...dia.com, hch@....de, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Add p2p via dmabuf to habanalabs

On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Greg, I hope this will be good enough for you to merge this code.
> 
> So we're officially going to use dri-devel for technical details review
> and then Greg for merging so we don't have to deal with other merge
> criteria dri-devel folks have?
> 
> I don't expect anything less by now, but it does make the original claim
> that drivers/misc will not step all over accelerators folks a complete
> farce under the totally-not-a-gpu banner.
> 
> This essentially means that for any other accelerator stack that doesn't
> fit the dri-devel merge criteria, even if it's acting like a gpu and uses
> other gpu driver stuff, you can just send it to Greg and it's good to go.
> 
> There's quite a lot of these floating around actually (and many do have
> semi-open runtimes, like habanalabs have now too, just not open enough to
> be actually useful). It's going to be absolutely lovely having to explain
> to these companies in background chats why habanalabs gets away with their
> stack and they don't.

FYI, I fully agree with Daniel here.  Habanlabs needs to open up their
runtime if they want to push any additional feature in the kernel.
The current situation is not sustainable.