Re: [PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 19/05/21 14:23, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > - the code could be removed if there's no progress on either changing the
> > RISC-V acceptance policy or ratifying the spec
>
> I really do not understand the issue here, why can this just not be
> merged normally?

Because the RISC-V people only want to merge code for "frozen" or 
"ratified" processor extensions, and the RISC-V foundation is dragging 
their feet in ratifying the hypervisor extension.

It's totally a self-inflicted pain on part of the RISC-V maintainers; 
see Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst:

  We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
  specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
  "Frozen" or "Ratified" by the RISC-V Foundation.  (Developers may, of
  course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for
  any draft extensions that they wish.)

(Link: 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst)

> All staging drivers need a TODO list that shows what needs to be done in
> order to get it out of staging.  All I can tell so far is that the riscv
> maintainers do not want to take this for "unknown reasons" so let's dump
> it over here for now where we don't have to see it.
>
> And that's not good for developers or users, so perhaps the riscv rules
> are not very good?

I agree wholeheartedly.

I have heard contrasting opinions on conflict of interest where the 
employers of the maintainers benefit from slowing down the integration 
of code in Linus's tree.  I find these allegations believable, but even 
if that weren't the case, the policy is (to put it kindly) showing its 
limits.

> > Of course there should have been a TODO file explaining the situation. But
> > if you think this is not the right place, I totally understand; if my
> > opinion had any weight in this, I would just place it in arch/riscv/kvm.
> >
> > The RISC-V acceptance policy as is just doesn't work, and the fact that
> > people are trying to work around it is proving it.  There are many ways to
> > improve it:
>
> What is this magical acceptance policy that is preventing working code
> from being merged?  And why is it suddenly the rest of the kernel
> developer's problems because of this?

It is my problem because I am trying to help Anup merging some perfectly 
good KVM code; when a new KVM port comes up, I coordinate merging the 
first arch/*/kvm bits with the arch/ maintainers and from that point on 
that directory becomes "mine" (or my submaintainers').

Paolo