lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] vfio-pci: Provide reviewers and acceptance criteria for vendor drivers
    On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:53:04 -0300
    Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:

    > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:26:17AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
    > > On Mon, Mar 14 2022, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Vendor or device specific extensions for devices exposed to userspace
    > > > through the vfio-pci-core library open both new functionality and new
    > > > risks. Here we attempt to provided formalized requirements and
    > > > expectations to ensure that future drivers both collaborate in their
    > > > interaction with existing host drivers, as well as receive additional
    > > > reviews from community members with experience in this area.
    > > >
    > > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
    > > > Cc: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@nvidia.com>
    > > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
    > > > Acked-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
    > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
    > >
    > > (...)
    > >
    > > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst
    > > > new file mode 100644
    > > > index 000000000000..3a108d748681
    > > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst
    > >
    > > What about Christoph's request to drop the "vendor" name?
    > > vfio-pci-device-specific-driver-acceptance.rst would match the actual
    > > title of the document, and the only drawback I see is that it is a bit
    > > longer.
    >
    > I agree we should not use the vendor name
    >
    > In general I wonder if this is a bit too specific to PCI, really this
    > is just review criteria for any driver making a struct vfio_device_ops
    > implementation, and we have some specific guidance for migration here
    > as well.
    >
    > Like if IBM makes s390 migration drivers all of this applies just as
    > well even though they are not PCI.

    Are you volunteering to be a reviewer under drivers/vfio/? Careful,
    I'll add you ;)

    What you're saying is true of course and it could be argued that this
    sort of criteria is true for any new driver, I think the unique thing
    here that raises it to a point where we want to formalize the breadth
    of reviews is how significantly lower the bar is to create a device
    specific driver now that we have a vfio-pci-core library. Shameer's
    stub driver is 100 LoC. I also expect that the pool of people willing
    to volunteer to be reviewers for PCI related device specific drivers is
    large than we might see for arbitrary drivers.

    > > > +New driver submissions are therefore requested to have approval via
    > > > +Sign-off/Acked-by/etc for any interactions with parent drivers.
    > >
    > > s/Sign-off/Reviewed-by/ ?
    > >
    > > I would not generally expect the reviewers listed to sign off on other
    > > people's patches.
    >
    > It happens quite a lot when those people help write the patches too :)

    This is what "etc" is for, the owners are involved and have endorsed it
    in some way, that's all we care about. Thanks,

    Alex

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-03-15 17:23    [W:6.079 / U:0.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site