[PATCHv7 07/13] irqdomain: add function to find a MSI irq_domain

On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 10:22 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

Dear Benjamin Herrenschmidt,

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this. There must be some continuity when
the maintenance of one subsystem transitions from one maintainer to
another. I'm perfectly ok with accepting some hick-ups, but not radical
changes in design decisions.

Well, I wrote it in the first place :-)

What you're asking me to do is to go completely backwards compared to
the comments and review Grant made. The irqdomain-based allocator was
suggested by Grant (see my previous e-mail, or Grant reply at
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/175430.html)
and was even Acked-by Grant in
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-July/187082.html.

Note that this patch set has been posted at the following dates:

 * PATCH version 7 sent on August, 7th 2013
 * PATCH version 6 sent on August, 1st 2013
 * PATCH version 5 sent on July, 15th 2013
 * PATCH version 4 sent on July, 1st 2013
 * PATCH version 3 sent on June, 19th 2013
 * PATCH version 2 sent on June, 6th 2013
 * RFC version 1 sent on March, 26th 2013

I'm really sorry and I feel your pain. I have not actively been
monitoring any of that stuff, and you might have gotten away without
CC'ing me or asking for my point of view but you did (and I thank you
for that), and sadly this is my opinion.

So it has been around since 4 months, I've taken into account all the
comments from the various maintainers who were involved, and especially
the comments from Grant. You cannot ask me now, as we are approaching
the next merge window for which this code is intended, to take
completely opposite design choices than what the previous irqdomain
maintainer was suggesting.

I can and I do. However, I also leave the opportunity of bringing in a
third party into the debate with a well known track record to overrule
me if he thinks I'm being unnecessarily obstructive.

Could you contact Grant and align with him on those design decisions?
It would also be good if you could read the past discussions on this
patch set, because all what you're pointing at has already been
discussed at length, as I pointed out in my previous e-mail.

I can try... Grant, are you around ? (I've added you to the CC list), we
might be able to catch up on IRC and discuss it ...

Cheers,
Ben.

Thanks,

Thomas