From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web09.4103.1583451081940428839 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:31:22 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=hWvamR9V; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 207.211.31.120, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583451081; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9S/xIgv10gU+KtGBIsjFhzq5xA+9kV1DcEhmg0Irl9s=; b=hWvamR9V12yw8Y9E3/A6IjiIqRBSG7WAsEf9ELgW/PxmHKnHfl09OFCdLTzKElMbXvPW8e u1fjwN56C6lqxc6VHIcWbnziljQza6KB4OFzfROkitH/tUWTQ0FnDaajG+Hj9KWY4vxo2v WGas85pbRHMUZrtHUCiIIZFM8IGBSaQ= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-435-NmoBwEBeMjSSYz94Gy45Iw-1; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:31:16 -0500 X-MC-Unique: NmoBwEBeMjSSYz94Gy45Iw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E259800D4E; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:31:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-117-216.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.216]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE27B5C219; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:31:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 00/13] OvmfPkg: Support booting from Fusion-MPT SCSI controllers To: devel@edk2.groups.io, nikita.leshchenko@oracle.com Cc: liran.alon@oracle.com, aaron.young@oracle.com, jordan.l.justen@intel.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org References: <20200304192257.96736-1-nikita.leshchenko@oracle.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 00:31:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200304192257.96736-1-nikita.leshchenko@oracle.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/04/20 20:22, Nikita Leshenko wrote: > This series adds driver support for: > - LSI53C1030 > - SAS1068 > - SAS1068E > > These controllers are widely supported by QEMU, VirtualBox and VMWare. > This work is part of the more general agenda of enhancing OVMF boot > device support to have feature parity with SeaBIOS. > > We have also developed support for PVSCSI which we will submit in a > separate patch series. > > I pushed a copy of these patches to > https://github.com/nikital/edk2/tree/mptscsi_v3 > > Note that I didn't address Laszlo's comment on v2 about BSD vs > BSD+patent licensing, it needs some internal discussion. I would still > like move forward with the review so I'm submitting v3 with the old > license for now. Sorry, this doesn't work for me. You seem to have removed the old "Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1" lines from the commit messages, and that's great. (My understanding is that those lines are now deal-breakers, because said "Contribution Agreement" is no longer in effect, or even described in the project, except in the "License-History.txt" file.) What does not work for me is reviewing a patch set that the submitter *knows* is unmergeable. I absolutely don't have time for that. Please submit a patch set that you honestly believe can be merged as-is. To be clear, the 2-Clause BSD License (SPDX short identifier: BSD-2-Clause) *is* acceptable, according to "Readme.md"; and I'm not trying to force you to contribute under "SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent". However, I explained at [1] that "Readme.md" contains the following passage: > The majority of the content in the EDK II open source project uses a > [BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License](License.txt). The EDK II open source project > contains the following components that are covered by additional licenses: > * [...] > * [OvmfPkg](OvmfPkg/License.txt) > * [...] and I asked that you please extend "OvmfPkg/License.txt", should you prefer to make this contribution under "BSD-2-Clause". [1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/a202d92e-61e1-187b-be47-e60ad282c575@redhat.com https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/55049 This (v3) posting is under "BSD-2-Clause" (which is fine), but the cumulative diffstat does not mention "OvmfPkg/License.txt", against my express request. Similarly counter to my express request, you have not adopted the SPDX notation even for "BSD-2-Clause". I think you may have thought that we could make progress on the technical details while you figured out your preferred license, and in the end, you'd *unconditionally* repost the series (even if it were technically perfect at v3), with one of the following modifications: - you'd stick with "BSD-2-Clause", and extend "OvmfPkg/License.txt", - or else you'd switch to "BSD-2-Clause-Patent". To be clear, this approach does not work for me. I don't have time for spurious reviews. When you post v(n+1) of the series, I have to: - fetch that from your repo and/or apply it from the list, - pull up my review notes that I had given for v(n), - compare every single patch in the v(n+1) series against the v(n) counterpart, and verify that your changes are in sync with my requests -- even if my only feedback for v(n) was a "Reviewed-by", - and generally page-in the whole topic against a "cold cache", possibly from a distance of a week or more. I can't do this *spuriously*. The bottleneck is at the review side, not at the contribution side. Of course, people do sometimes post RFC patches (marked as such). That's a great tool to discuss prototypes and new ideas. I give RFC series a *fraction* of the attention that I give to real PATCH series. I might ignore RFCs completely. Please post v4 with either the license flipped to "BSD-2-Clause-Patent", or with "OvmfPkg/License.txt" modified. If you need time to decide, please post v4 when you have decided. Per : - Your v1 posting was in January 2019, - you announced starting work on v2 in November 2019, - you posted v2 in February 2020. In response to every one of the v1 through v3 postings, I followed up in at most 3 days, as much as I can tell. I think we can now wait for a week or two until your Legal Department figures out the license under which they would like you to make this contribution. Thanks, Laszlo