drm request 3
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [GIT PULL] SLAB updates for 2.6.34-rc1
Next: [PATCH 1/1] perf: add support for arch-dependent symbolic event names to "perf stat"
From: Linus Torvalds on 4 Mar 2010 14:00 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:36:55 -0800 > Jesse Barnes <jbarnes(a)virtuousgeek.org> wrote: > > Yes Dave probably should have mentioned it in his pull request, but > > that doesn't seem to be a good reason not to pull imo... > > And now I see Dave did mention this, so what gives. Guidance please. Yeah, it's in the first one. My bad. I didn't notice, because that one got cancelled for other reasons and never even tested. That doesn't change the simple basic issue: how are people with Fedora-12 going to test any kernel out now? And are there libdrm versions that can handle _both_ cases, so that people can bisect things? IOW, even if you have a new libdrm, will it then work with the _old_ kernel too? Backwards compatibility is really important. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Matthew Garrett on 4 Mar 2010 14:00 On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:43:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Or is there a version of X that can handle _both_ the 0.0.15 and the > 0.0.16 interfaces? When you asked that nouveau was merged, people explicitly told you that the reason it hadn't been was because the interface was unstable and userspace would break. You asked that it be merged anyway, and now you're unhappy because the interface has changed and userspace has broken? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Linus Torvalds on 4 Mar 2010 14:00 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > When you asked that nouveau was merged, people explicitly told you that > the reason it hadn't been was because the interface was unstable and > userspace would break. You asked that it be merged anyway, and now > you're unhappy because the interface has changed and userspace has > broken? How hard is it to understand basic kernel development rules? Nouveau was in Fedora-12. In fact, it was in Fedora-11 too afaik. People can hide behind all the "staging" and "I asked for it" things they like, but that doesn't change simple basic facts: distros should make sure drivers get merged up-stream, and people end up depending on them. Btw, I'm hoping some of this pain goes away for me, because I expect to get rid of the shitty nVidia card reasonably soon. The fact that my main box had a power supply that literally _required_ a power-sucking-piece- of-sh*t-graphics card has been painful to me. But none of that changes my basic objections. I didn't ask for nouveau to be merged as staging - I asked it to be merged because a major distro uses it. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Matthew Garrett on 4 Mar 2010 14:10 On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:55:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > When you asked that nouveau was merged, people explicitly told you that > > the reason it hadn't been was because the interface was unstable and > > userspace would break. You asked that it be merged anyway, and now > > you're unhappy because the interface has changed and userspace has > > broken? > > How hard is it to understand basic kernel development rules? > > Nouveau was in Fedora-12. In fact, it was in Fedora-11 too afaik. People > can hide behind all the "staging" and "I asked for it" things they like, > but that doesn't change simple basic facts: distros should make sure > drivers get merged up-stream, and people end up depending on them. It takes a long time to work out exactly what kind of userspace interface you need when the hardware you're dealing with is entirely undocumented. The reason it's been shipped in Fedora is that it needs to be in front of actual users in order to get any testing at all, and we have the manpower to ensure that the dependencies are consistent. But most nouveau development isn't handled inside Red Hat, and we're in no position to dictate terms to the volunteers who are spending their spare time trying to write a useful driver. > Btw, I'm hoping some of this pain goes away for me, because I expect to > get rid of the shitty nVidia card reasonably soon. The fact that my main > box had a power supply that literally _required_ a power-sucking-piece- > of-sh*t-graphics card has been painful to me. You'd have hit similar issues if you'd been using Radeon KMS over the past couple of releases... > But none of that changes my basic objections. I didn't ask for nouveau to > be merged as staging - I asked it to be merged because a major distro uses > it. It was merged as staging because the interface is unstable, which is consistent with staging's Kconfig: "Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be changed in the near future." If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged until the interface was stable. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Linus Torvalds on 4 Mar 2010 14:10
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > If marking the driver as staging doesn't allow them to break ABI when > they need to, then it seems like they'll have no choice but to either > remove the driver from upstream and only submit it when the ABI is > stable, or fork the driver and submit a new one only when the ABI is > stable. Neither seem particularly attractive. The thing is, they clearly didn't even _try_ to make anything compatible. See how all the ioctl numbers were moved around. And if you can't make if backwards compatible, at least you should make it forwards-compatible. Is it even that? I don't know. I'm kind of afraid it isn't. The new libdrm required for it certainly hasn't been pushed to Fedora-12. Will it ever be? And if it is, can you still run an old kernel on it? All of these are always possible to do. We've been _very_ good at doing them in general. I'm complaining, because let's face it, what else can I do? And btw, I'd complain about breaking backwards compatibility even if it wasn't just my own machine. I can pretty much guarantee that I'm not going to be the only one hitting this issue. So practically speaking: what _do_ you suggest we do about all the regressions this will cause? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |