Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:27:44 -0700

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:01:42 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote:
>> As I said previously in [0] until there is a compatible, widely
>> available implementation from a second vendor - this is an Intel
>> driver and nothing more. It's not moving anywhere.  
> 
> My concern isn't around the OASIS legal stuff, it's about the users who
> end up using this and will end up getting confused when we have two (or
> more) in-kernel "IDPF" drivers.
> 
> I don't think that moving is an option - it'll brake distros and upset
> users: we can't rename drivers as we go because it has a good chance of
> breaking users.

Minor pain for backports but I don't think we need to rename anything,
just move.

Or we can just leave it be under intel/, since there are not other
participant now. Unless perhaps under google/ is a better option?

Drivers are organized by the vendor for better or worse. We have a
number of drivers under the "wrong directly" already. Companies merge /
buy each others product lines, there's also some confusion about common
IP drivers. It's all fine, whatever. 

Users are very, very unlikely to care.

>> I think that's a reasonable position which should allow Intel to ship
>> your code and me to remain professional.  
> 
> No concerns about OASIS or the current code, I just don't want to make
> this a mess for the users.

It's not a standard until someone else actually adopts it. What stops
all the other vendors from declaring that their driver interface is a
standard now, too?

We have a long standing rule in netdev against using marketing language.