Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] DirectX on Linux

[Sasha Levin]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:51:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Having said that, I hit one stumbling block:
> > > "Further, at this time there are no presentation integration. "
> > >
> > > If we upstream this driver as-is into some hyperv specific place, and
> > > you decide to add presentation integration this is more than likely
> > > going to mean you will want to interact with dma-bufs and dma-fences.
> > > If the driver is hidden away in a hyperv place it's likely we won't
> > > even notice that feature landing until it's too late.
> > >
> > > I would like to see a coherent plan for presentation support (not
> > > code, just an architectural diagram), because I think when you
> > > contemplate how that works it will change the picture of how this
> > > driver looks and intergrates into the rest of the Linux graphics
> > > ecosystem.
> > >
> > > As-is I'd rather this didn't land under my purview, since I don't see
> > > the value this adds to the Linux ecosystem at all, and I think it's
> > > important when putting a burden on upstream that you provide some
> > > value.
> >
> > I also have another concern from a legal standpoint I'd rather not
> > review the ioctl part of this. I'd probably request under DRI
> > developers abstain as well.
> >
> > This is a Windows kernel API being smashed into a Linux driver. I don't want to be
> > tainted by knowledge of an API that I've no idea of the legal status of derived works.
> > (it this all covered patent wise under OIN?)
>
> If you can't look onto it, perhaps it is not suitable to merge into kernel...?
>
> What would be legal requirements so this is "safe to look at"? We should really
> require submitter to meet them...

Could you walk me through your view on what the function of the
"Signed-off-by" tag is?

--
Thanks,
Sasha