Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:36:43 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Asahi Lina <lina@...hilina.net>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@....com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
        Ella Stanforth <ella@...unix.org>,
        Faith Ekstrand <faith.ekstrand@...labora.com>,
        Mary <mary@...y.zone>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, asahi@...ts.linux.dev,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/18] rust: drm: gem: Add GEM object abstraction

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 02:32:12PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 1:23 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Ok if this is just interim I think it's fine. Would still be good to have
> > the MAINTAINERS entry though even just to cover the interim state. Least
> > because I'm assuming that when things are split up you'd still want to
> > keep the rust list on cc for the rust parts, even when they move into
> > subsystems?
> 
> Sorry, I missed to reply the second part of your email -- replying here.
> 
> Currently, the subsystem's code is under `rust/` (though modules can
> go already into other folders). One of the reasons was technical
> simplicity, and a nice side effect is that we could bootstrap things
> while getting C maintainers involved over time.
> 
> To accomplish that, the guidelines for contributing Rust code are that
> the respective maintainers need to be at least Cc'd, even if the files
> do not hit the `F:` fields for the time being -- see [1]. But, for us,
> ideally, the maintainers will take the changes through their tree,
> instead of going through the Rust one, since that is the end goal.
> 
> And, of course, if you already want to have `F:` fields for the Rust
> code, that is even better! (Whether those should be in the same entry
> or in a new one, it is up to you, of course, and whether it is a
> different set of people / level of support / etc.)
> 
> Then, when the `kernel` crate split happens, we can move the code
> directly under whatever folders it should be naturally, when their
> maintainers are ready. For some subsystems, that may mean they do not
> need any `F:` fields since they are already covered (e.g. if they did
> not create a new entry for Rust code only). And for cases like yours,
> where you already had `F:` fields, it means the move of the files can
> be done right away as soon as the split happens.
> 
> In short, we would definitely welcome if you add `F:` fields already
> (whether in existing or new entries) -- it would mean you are ahead of
> the curve! :)
> 
> As for the mailing list, yes, for the time being, I ask that all
> changes to please be sent to the Rust list, so that everybody that
> wants to follow the Rust progress has everything in a single place, so
> that we try to remain consistent in the beginning on e.g. coding
> guidelines, so that Rust reviewers can help spot mistakes, and so on
> and so forth.
> 
> But, as Rust grows in the kernel, as systems become non-experimental,
> and as maintainers take ownership of the code, that should eventually
> go away and let things be as usual with C code. Then the Rust
> subsystem (and its list) will become smaller, and it will be the
> subsystem (and the discussion place) for anything not covered by other
> subsystems, such as core Rust abstractions and types, Rust
> infrastructure and so on.
> 
> How does that sound?

Yeah sounds all great!

I think interim at least a separate rust drm entry
would be good, to make sure we always cc both rust and dri-devel. Once
it's too much for you and you generally trust the dri-devel folks to not
design stupid interfaces, we can then drop that and only ping rust folks
when needed. I do expect that's some years out though.
-Daniel

> 
> [1] https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#the-rust-subsystem (I may
> reorganize this to be Rust's `P:` field, by the way)
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Powered by blists - more mailing lists