Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

lists.freedesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 284 posts

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#11

Post by zznneezznnee »

The kernel maintainers don't necessarily want your code.

Additional shit in mainline increases the maintenance burden. If the code isn't putting upstream maintainability above all else in its implementation, then it's generally not getting merged unless someone wasn't paying attention or some other forces compelled an exception.

Alex's first reply reads like he's willfully ignoring that aspect of the NACK. It's not a coding style issue, it's a HAL issue. Upstream isn't interested in maintaining a HAL and living with the impedance mismatch from day zero. The driver can stay out of tree. This is just about code getting into mainline.

I'm personally very happy to see the gpu subsystem maintainers paying attention and having the maturity to know a fool's errand when they see it.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#12

Post by wyldfire »

imaginenore wrote: post #3

What I don't get is how one kernel maintainer can make such a massive decision that affects all of Linux. That's some near-totalitarian level of power. After reading the arguments, I'm kind of on AMD's side. I get what Dave wants, but it seems extremely idealistic.

Linus delegates authority to people he trusts. And in this case, Dave is likely representing well what Linus would do.

> near-totalitarian level of power.

I don't think you meant to use that word. Linus and the kernel contributors together own the copyrights on the kernel. It's not totalitarian for them to dictate its future. It's their creative work. It's downright egalitarian that they let you use the kernel however you like, provided that you give the source in turn to whoever you hand it to.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#13

Post by pja »

lettergram wrote: post #7

I do feel Dave went a bit over the top in his response. If he keeps it technical it's easier to fix, people want to see their stuff merged. When he makes it personal (which he kind of did) it turns people off. That being said, I do think Dave probably made the right call, but I also think he may need to compromise on this one. That being said, AMD should strategicly try and get their GPUs supported. Couple that, with…

From his point of view the AMD guys were told that this code wouldn’t be merged as is six months ago and now they come back with a massive code drop and very effectively put him in the position of having to be the bad guy.

I think we’d all have some sharp words we’d like to use in that situation even if the better part of our natures might counsel us to keep them to ourselves.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#14

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wyldfire wrote: post #12
imaginenore wrote: post #3

What I don't get is how one kernel maintainer can make such a massive decision that affects all of Linux. That's some near-totalitarian level of power. After reading the arguments, I'm kind of on AMD's side. I get what Dave wants, but it seems extremely idealistic.

Linus delegates authority to people he trusts. And in this case, Dave is likely representing well what Linus would do. > near-totalitarian level of power. I don't think you meant to use that word. Linus and the kernel contributors together own the copyrights on the kernel. It's not totalitarian for them to dictate its future. It's their creative work. It's downright egalitarian that they let you use the kernel howeve…

I suppose the intended notion, would be given the number of Linux distributions and use cases out there, the number of companies involved, the number of products built on top of the Linux kernel... it's amazing that one guy with little financial interest in the results or effects can make that call for everyone.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, to be honest, it's just... particularly interesting about the way Linux works.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#15

Post by Analemma_ »

aqtrans wrote: post #8

Did I miss the mud-slinging and corporate culture bashing from the original rejection? I can get the AMD dev being a bit sour by the whole situation if they personally spent time working on this rejected patch, but damn.

While I agree with Dave that the patch should not have been merged, I can understand the tone of the reply, not just from frustration but maybe even some actual panic about job security. Depending on how AMD's management takes this news, some of the people who wrote this patch may not have a job in a little while if the merge doesn't happen. I'm trying to be sympathetic.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#16

Post by aqtrans »

jff wrote: post #10
aqtrans wrote: post #8

Did I miss the mud-slinging and corporate culture bashing from the original rejection? I can get the AMD dev being a bit sour by the whole situation if they personally spent time working on this rejected patch, but damn.

There were certainly implications that the AMD coders were making technically compromised decisions: > The reason the toplevel maintainer (me) doesn't work for Intel or AMD or any vendors, is that I can say NO when your maintainers can't or won't say it. And telling them to sit in a corner and really THINK about what you've done, young man: > I'd like some serious introspection on your team's part on how you got into…

Ahh, thanks for pointing those out. I completely skipped over those portions...I was expecting some Linus-level chewing out that I'd missed given the tone of the response, haha.

Certainly pretty mild considering the source, though I understand why the second quote would stir things up a bit, especially making it into an "Us vs Them" situation.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#17

Post by wmf »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14
wyldfire wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus delegates authority to people he trusts. And in this case, Dave is likely representing well what Linus would do. > near-totalitarian level of power. I don't think you meant to use that word. Linus and the kernel contributors together own the copyrights on the kernel. It's not totalitarian for them to dictate its future. It's their creative work. It's downright egalitarian that they let you use the kernel howeve…

I suppose the intended notion, would be given the number of Linux distributions and use cases out there, the number of companies involved, the number of products built on top of the Linux kernel... it's amazing that one guy with little financial interest in the results or effects can make that call for everyone. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, to be honest, it's just... particularly interesting ab…

It's amazing that one guy with little financial interest in the results or effects can make that call for everyone.

Impartial expert judges are usually considered a good thing. Note that Dave Airlie is not acting on a whim here; the Linux development community has discussed HALs for probably 20 years and has come to the conclusion that they are a net negative. For better or worse, the Linux development process does not care about democracy or market share or vendor relations. It's a somewhat unusual way to build software, but the result pretty much speaks for itself.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#18

Post by Analemma_ »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14
wyldfire wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus delegates authority to people he trusts. And in this case, Dave is likely representing well what Linus would do. > near-totalitarian level of power. I don't think you meant to use that word. Linus and the kernel contributors together own the copyrights on the kernel. It's not totalitarian for them to dictate its future. It's their creative work. It's downright egalitarian that they let you use the kernel howeve…

I suppose the intended notion, would be given the number of Linux distributions and use cases out there, the number of companies involved, the number of products built on top of the Linux kernel... it's amazing that one guy with little financial interest in the results or effects can make that call for everyone. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, to be honest, it's just... particularly interesting ab…

If it was a big secret that this was how Linux worked and it took the companies by surprise, I could see how this could be a bad thing, but it never has been: Linus has always been very upfront that he is Benevolent Dictator for Life and always has the last word. Don't get onboard if you don't like that system.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#19

Post by wolfgke »

Analemma_ wrote: post #18
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the intended notion, would be given the number of Linux distributions and use cases out there, the number of companies involved, the number of products built on top of the Linux kernel... it's amazing that one guy with little financial interest in the results or effects can make that call for everyone. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, to be honest, it's just... particularly interesting ab…

If it was a big secret that this was how Linux worked and it took the companies by surprise, I could see how this could be a bad thing, but it never has been: Linus has always been very upfront that he is Benevolent Dictator for Life and always has the last word. Don't get onboard if you don't like that system.

Then all the Linux fans that complained to AMD that they don't deliver open source drivers should from now on better shitstorm the kernel maintainers, since AMD delivered.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#20

Post by zie »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14
wyldfire wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus delegates authority to people he trusts. And in this case, Dave is likely representing well what Linus would do. > near-totalitarian level of power. I don't think you meant to use that word. Linus and the kernel contributors together own the copyrights on the kernel. It's not totalitarian for them to dictate its future. It's their creative work. It's downright egalitarian that they let you use the kernel howeve…

I suppose the intended notion, would be given the number of Linux distributions and use cases out there, the number of companies involved, the number of products built on top of the Linux kernel... it's amazing that one guy with little financial interest in the results or effects can make that call for everyone. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, to be honest, it's just... particularly interesting ab…

That's not true, really. Many vendors keep their own in-house patches to the mainline tree, that never make it upstream for various reasons(See Android's kernel for instance). There is nothing stopping a vendor or anyone else, from publishing their own linux tree that is a fork of mainline with this AMD patch applied. Linus maintains the 'mainline' tree, just because of the history and because most kernel hackers believe in their ability to run with it, but if Linus and friends ever did something horrid, there is nothing to stop some other group of people from forking and everyone moving to said new fork. That's part of the whole point of the GPLv2 and other OSS licenses.
Post reply on HN