Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] acrn: add the ACRN driver module

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:25AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019å08æ16æ 14:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25:41AM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote:
> > > The first three patches are the changes under x86/acrn, which adds the
> > > required APIs for the driver and reports the X2APIC caps.
> > > The remaining patches add the ACRN driver module, which accepts the ioctl
> > > from user-space and then communicate with the low-level ACRN hypervisor
> > > by using hypercall.
> > 
> > I have a problem with that: you're adding interfaces to arch/x86/ and
> > its users go into staging. Why? Why not directly put the driver where
> > it belongs, clean it up properly and submit it like everything else is
> > submitted?
> 
> Thanks for your reply and the concern.
> 
> After taking a look at several driver examples(gma500, android), it seems
> that they are firstly added into drivers/staging/XXX and then moved to
> drivers/XXX after the driver becomes mature.
> So we refer to this method to upstream ACRN driver part.

Those two examples are probably the worst examples to ever look at :)

The code quality of those submissions was horrible, gma500 took a very
long time to clean up and there are parts of the android code that are
still in staging to this day.

> If the new driver can also be added by skipping the staging approach,
> we will refine it and then submit it in normal process.

That is the normal process, staging should not be needed at all for any
code.  It is a fall-back for when the company involved has no idea of
how to upstream their code, which should NOT be the case here.

thanks,

greg k-h