[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3912bdd6-ca2b-625b-9fcf-637aa662f20c@aquantia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:42:47 +0300
From: Igor Russkikh <igor.russkikh@...antia.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/7] net: aquantia: implement WOL and EEE
support
>> Discussion outcome regarding driver version bumps was not finished
>> (here https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/954905/)
>> David, could you suggest the best way to proceed on this?
>
> Having a channel for your driver that is outside of upstream and Linux
> distribution packages creates lots of problems.
>
> When a user reports a problem with an upstream kernel, that verion
> dictates which driver source was being used. There is not confusion
> or ambiguity.
>
> For a distribution kernel, the distributor hashes out which driver
> they published in their kernel package when evaluating a bug reported
> to them.
>
> None of these two entities is ready to evaluate and handle properly
> your custom scheme.
>
> So generally I frown against separate distribution schemes. It is
> in the final analysis an inferior experience for the user because
> you basically narrow all of their support channels for problems
> down to you and you alone. The whole idea is to make it work the
> opposite way.
>
> So in the upstream tree, really, the driver version is pretty useless.
Thank you for the comment, David.
I'll pass over these concerns to my company management.
BR, Igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists