From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754603Ab0CERDb (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:03:31 -0500 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:44324 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753880Ab0CERDa (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:03:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:04:14 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Miller , daniel@fooishbar.org, skeggsb@gmail.com, airlied@linux.ie, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, dri-devel@lists.sf.net, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [git pull] drm request 3 Message-ID: <20100305170414.46acfb8f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20100305151754.GB2505@tempa> <20100305.072612.186421758.davem@davemloft.net> <20100305154009.GC2505@tempa> <20100305.074835.159078083.davem@davemloft.net> <20100305160217.663413eb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100305162327.084d4038@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.18.6; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The > guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole > integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved, > and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, but I learnt from last > time that the nouveau guys don't seem to care. Ok "screamed about" is perhaps better wording. Why should the Nouveau guys care ? You've forced their hand, you've demanded stuff they said they didn't want to do and then you've bitched about things they said they would do. Actually I think they've been quite restrained. I'd probably have proposed a licence change to make it only work on FreeBSD and Solaris given that treatment ;) > Even if you need to change the interface, I've actually looked at the > patch in question (have you, Alan?), Yes but I read it somewhat differently. Someone who never made a commitment to stability decided to do the logical thing. They deleted all the old broken interfaces, they cleaned up their ioctls numbering and they tided up afterwards. I read it as the action of someone who simply doesnt acknowledge that you have a right to control their development and is continuing to work in the way they intended. You can only see it as malicious if you assume they ever had some reason to keep compatibility or had promised it somewhere. Quite the reverse happened, and they never asked to be upstream in the first place. "But the fact is, at least from my standpoint, I'd really hope that anything I had written would be used in ways I asked people to" - Linus Torvalds, 2004