netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

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]

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:31:36 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, pabeni@...hat.com,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
 Platforms Host Network Interface

Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:03:54AM CEST, jacob.e.keller@...el.com wrote:
>
>
>On 4/10/2024 12:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:29:57 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> If we are going to be trying to come up with some special status maybe
>>>> it makes sense to have some status in the MAINTAINERS file that would
>>>> indicate that this driver is exclusive to some organization and not
>>>> publicly available so any maintenance would have to be proprietary.  
>>>
>>> I like that idea.
>> 
>> +1, also first idea that came to mind but I was too afraid 
>> of bike shedding to mention it :) Fingers crossed? :)
>> 
>
>+1, I think putting it in MAINTAINERS makes a lot of sense.

Well, how exactly you imagine to do this? I have no problem using
MAINTAINERS for this, I was thinking about that too, but I could not
figure out the way it would work. Having driver directory is much more
obvious, person cooking up a patch sees that immediatelly. Do you look
at MAINTAINTERS file when you do some driver API changing patch/ any
patch? I certainly don't (not counting get_maintainers sctipt).