Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch

Re:Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch by brongondwana on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:10AM (#13138276)

Of course not, the maintainers will accept a well thought out series of patches that each make one small logical change towards the better interface.

And yes - who else is supposed to fix all the regressions caused by changes that AMD wants? Volunteers who would rather work on something else? If you want a change, you get to support the regressions - and if AMD's work gets merged, then anyone ELSE who wants to make a change in that page needs to support AMD's regressions.

Hence wanting to make sure that the changes from AMD are manageable and flexible enough to allow further changes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch by wolfgke on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:23AM (#13138321)

> If you want a change, you get to support the regressions

And what about a change to a stable internal kernel API, which the kernel developers refuse?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch by pas on Friday December 09, 2016 @10:36AM (#13139279)

No, they just want a stable future, around which they can plan the API, but so far no one has delivered on that tiny requirement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch by prodigal_erik on Friday December 09, 2016 @10:00PM (#13143755)

Linux got where it is by evolving how the kernel and drivers interact whenever needed, without waiting to coordinate with outsiders and their closed work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch by the_why_of_y on Friday December 09, 2016 @02:21PM (#13141051)

The Linux kernel does not have stable internal kernel APIs.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel maintainer says no to AMDGPU patch by wolfgke on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:02PM (#13142642)

This is exactly my point.

[ Parent | on HN ]