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

[Williams, Dan J]

[ Ugh, as other have lameneted, I was not copied on this thread so I
could not respond in real time. Let me be another to say, please copy
all impacted lists and stakeholders on patches. ]

On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 11:08 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
[..]
> 
> > Several names were suggested (like peer bus, which was shot down
> > because in
> > parts on the English speaking world the peerage means nobility),
> > finally
> > "ancillary bus" was arrived at by consensus of not hating it.
> 
> "not hating it", while sometimes is a good thing, for something that
> I
> am going to have to tell everyone to go use, I would like to at least
> "like it".  And right now I don't like it...
> 
> I think we should go back to "virtual" for now, or, if the people who
> didn't like it on your "internal" reviews wish to participate here
> and
> defend their choice, I would be glad to listen to that reasoning.

I came out strongly against "virtual" because there is nothing virtual
about these devices, they are functional partitions of the parent
device. Also, /sys/devices/virtual is already the land of unparented  /
software-defined devices. Having /sys/devices/virtual alongside that is
 not quite a namespace collision, but it's certainly namespace
confusion in my view.

I proposed other names, the team came back with "ancillary" which was
not my first choice, but perfectly suitable. In deference to the people
doing the work I let their choice stand.

It is an uncomfortable position being a middle tier reviewer of pre-
release patch sets when the patch set can still be de-railed by
preference nits. A lack of deference makes it a difficult job to
convince people "hey my internal review will save you some time
upstream", when in practice they can see the opposite is true.