[PATCH 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client support

[Ertman, David M]

I have also sent this patch set to netdev and linux-rdma mailing lists.

-DaveE

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:14 AM
> To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman at intel.com>
> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; tiwai at suse.de; broonie at kernel.org; pierre-
> louis.bossart at linux.intel.com; Sridharan, Ranjani
> <ranjani.sridharan at intel.com>; jgg at nvidia.com; parav at nvidia.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client
> support
> 
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:50:45PM -0700, Dave Ertman wrote:
> > The ancillary bus (then known as virtual bus) was originally submitted
> > along with implementation code for the ice driver and irdma drive,
> > causing the complication of also having dependencies in the rdma tree.
> > This new submission is utilizing an ancillary bus consumer in only the
> > sound driver tree to create the initial implementation and a single
> > user.
> 
> So this will not work for the ice driver and/or irdma drivers?  It would
> be great to see how they work for this as well as getting those
> maintainers to review and sign off on this implementation as well.
> Don't ignore those developers, that's a bit "odd", don't you think?
> 
> To drop them from the review process is actually kind of rude, what
> happens if this gets merged without their input?
> 
> And the name, why was it changed and what does it mean?  For non-native
> english speakers this is going to be rough, given that I as a native
> english speaker had to go look up the word in a dictionary to fully
> understand what you are trying to do with that name.
> 
> Naming is hard, but I think this name is really hard to explain and
> understand, don't you think?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h