netdev - Re: [E1000-devel] [net-next v5 8/8] i40e: include i40e in kernel proper

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: <20130906103905.125c2fa8@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:39:05 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [net-next v5 8/8] i40e: include i40e in kernel
 proper

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:28:09 +0000
"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org] On
> > Behalf Of Joe Perches
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:47 PM
> > To: Brandeburg, Jesse
> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; davem@...emloft.net; e1000-
> > devel@...ts.sourceforge.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; gospo@...hat.com;
> > sassmann@...hat.com
> > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [net-next v5 8/8] i40e: include i40e in kernel
> > proper
> > 
> > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 06:28 +0000, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:15 PM, "Stephen Hemminger"
> > <stephen@...workplumber.org<mailto:stephen@...workplumber.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dumb question why is this named Kbuild instead of Makefile like almost
> > > every other network driver?
> > >
> > > All the new kids are doing it, we'll at least that is what I thought when
> > I made it.
> > >
> > > Re-reading https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
> > >
> > > I see that Makefile is preferred but Kbuild overrides Makefile.
> > >
> > > Either way works, but I would prefer not to rename it at this point but
> > would gladly do so in a follow up patch
> > 
> > Please do.
> > 
> > I suppose it makes _some_ sense to use Kbuild in the
> > include paths but I think Makefile in places where
> > compilations are done is better.
> > 
> 
> That was me. I did it to make things less confusing for our customers and for us as engineers.
> 
> My goal was to make our out-of-tree driver as close as possible - including the makefiles - to the upstream driver. Doing this makes it simpler for us to backport and forward-port patches. It makes it less confusing for us when we're moving from one environment to the other.
> 
> The Kbuild file submitted here is exactly the same file that will be included in our out-of-tree tarball. To avoid confusion, I named it Kbuild, so nobody would just run make in the source directory. The toplevel makefile in our tarball is named Makefile, and I wanted that to be the only Makefile around so nobody would be confused (including me).
> 
> The kernel documentation specifically states that this is acceptable (Documentation/kbuild/modules.txt). Furthermore, Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt states that using Kbuild as a filename is acceptable.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer to keep these named Kbuild. Doing so makes it simpler to keep our in-tree and out-of-tree drivers in sync. But if you're really passionate about having them named Makefile, we can deal with it. It's just one more detail for us to keep track of (and potentially screw up).
> 
> If there is a hard requirement that these files be named Makefile, then I would request that the kernel documentation be updated to reflect this.
> 
> -Mitch

First, upstream kernel does not care how or why you do something for out-of-tree driver.
As far as network developers are concerned, it is your own process (mistake) and you can
live with the consequences of that decision.

Second, why introduce something different to upstream with no apparent benefit

$ find drivers/net -name Kbuild | wc -l
0



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html