On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 10/9/26 10:03, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 10:55:49AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 at 17:44, Bruce Richardson
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The idxd DMA driver was marked as experimental in MAINTAINERS file.
> > > > Remove this designation as it's been stable for a long time now.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: e33ad06eaeeb ("dma/idxd: add skeleton for VFIO based DSA device")
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Putting the fixline as the original start of the driver implementation,
> > > > since there is no good commit point to use to identify the stabilization
> > > > of the driver. Since this change should be good to backport to all
> > > > currently supported LTS releases, the orignal addition of the driver
> > > > works fine as a commit being fixed.
> > >
> > > No opinion on the backporting aspect.
> > > At least the driver looks stable for a while, so the patch lgtm.
> > >
> > Given that the driver has been around since 2021 and the oldest supported
> > LTS is 23.11, I felt it worthwhile to backport. However, if LTS
> > maintainers want to avoid this patch, I'm not too concerned :-)
>
> We're saying the main branch is non-experimental _now_ but it has diverged
> from what is in LTS branches e.g. [0]
>
> I think it would be better not to backport this patch to LTS as the driver
> was released as experimental in those releases and the docs reflect that.
>
> That it is changing in main is positive :-) but it doesn't seem worth
> evaluating each LTS branch and backports (and any other code context) to say
> if could now say that about the LTS branch too and retro-fitting the docs.
>
Sure, no problem.
