Message-ID: <20240722141343.GH13497@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 17:13:43 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgg@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 04:28:28PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 02:10:04PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:44:07PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:53:17AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:31:19AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 10:25:30PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:15:13PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > > > > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The upstream discussion has yielded the full spectrum of positions on
> > > > > > > > > device specific functionality, and it is a topic that needs cross-
> > > > > > > > > kernel consensus as hardware increasingly spans cross-subsystem
> > > > > > > > > concerns. Please consider it for a Maintainers Summit discussion.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'm with Greg on this ... can you point to some of the contrary
> > > > > > > > positions?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This thread has that discussion:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > http://lore.kernel.org/0-v1-9912f1a11620+2a-fwctl_jgg@nvidia.com
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I do not want to speak for others on the saliency of their points, all I
> > > > > > > can say is that the contrary positions have so far not moved me to drop
> > > > > > > consideration of fwctl for CXL.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Where CXL has a Command Effects Log that is a reasonable protocol for
> > > > > > > making decisions about opaque command codes, and that CXL already has a
> > > > > > > few years of experience with the commands that *do* need a Linux-command
> > > > > > > wrapper.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Some open questions from that thread are: what does it mean for the fate
> > > > > > > of a proposal if one subsystem Acks the ABI and another Naks it for a
> > > > > > > device that crosses subsystem functionality? Would a cynical hardware
> > > > > > > response just lead to plumbing an NVME admin queue, or CXL mailbox to
> > > > > > > get device-specific commands past another subsystem's objection?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My default answer would be to trust the maintainers of the relevant
> > > > > > subsystems (or try to convince them when you disagree :-)).
> > > > > 
> > > > > You know, trust is a two-way street. If you want to trust maintainers,
> > > > > they need to trust others as well. The situation where one maintainer
> > > > > says "I don't trust you, so I will not allow you and other X maintainers
> > > > > to do Y" is not a healthy situation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Not only should they know the technical implications best, they should also have
> > > > > > a good view of the whole vertical stack, and the implications of
> > > > > > pass-through for their ecosystem. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is wishful thinking. It is clearly not true for large subsystems
> > > > > and/or complex devices.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you saying that kernel communities behind large subsystems for
> > > > complex devices generally have no idea about what they're doing ? Or
> > > > that in a small number of particular cases those communities are
> > > > clueless ? Or does that apply to just the maintainer, not the whole
> > > > subsystem core developers ? I'd like to better understand the scale of
> > > > your claim here.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how you jumped from saying "the maintainers of the relevant
> > > subsystems" to "kernel communities". I'm talking about maintainers, not
> > > communities.
> > 
> > I wasn't too sure, so that's why I asked. I have also not been very
> > precise in my previous e-mails. When I mentioned trusting maintainers, I
> > meant trusting the combined knowledge of the relevant maintainer(s) and
> > core developer(s) for a subsystema
> 
> Unfortunately, the reason for this topic proposed for Maintainer's summit
> is that the maintainer and core developers are disagree and there is no way
> to resolve it, because it is not technical difference, but a philosophical one.

Having been involved in a similar disagreement, I'm not sure
"philosophical" is the right term. I can't talk about the fwctl issue in
particular as I have only vaguely followed the saga, and I will
therefore not take a side there, but in general I tend to use
"political" instead of "philosophical". The issues of market control,
competition and vendor lock-in vs. empowerment also play important
roles. This makes it even more difficult to discuss the disagreements
openly.

> > The number of people that this covers, and how they collectively reach
> > agreements, very much depends on subsystems.
> > 
> > > There is no way to know everything about everything. In large subsystems,
> > > the stack above kernel is so vast, which makes it impossible to know all
> > > use cases. This is why some words (... good ... whole ...) in your sentence
> > > are not accurate.
> > > 
> > > So the idea that one maintainer somehow equal to the whole community and
> > > this person can block something for other members of the larger community
> > > is overreaching.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists