Hi Christian,
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, 18:10 Daniel Vetter, <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Christian König
<christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 26.06.20 um 06:43 schrieb Sumit Semwal:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 01:24, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Ignoring everything else ...
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:28 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> As a side note, there seem to be extra checks in place for acks when
> >>> applying non-i915 patches to drm-intel; there are no such checks for
> >>> drm-misc.
> >> One option to generalize that that I pondered is to consult
> >> get_maintainers.pl asking for git repo link, and if that returns
> >> something else, then insist that there's an ack from a relevant
> >> maintainer. It's a bit of typing, but I think the bigger problem is
> >> that there's a ton of false positives.
> > Right; for the particular patch, I wasn't even in the to: or cc: field
> > and that made it slip from my radar. I would definitely ask any one
> > sending patches for dma-buf directory to follow the get_maintainers.pl
> > religiously.
> >> But maybe that's a good thing, would give some motivation to keep
> >> MAINTAINERS updated.
>
> Should I maybe add myself as maintainer as well? I've written enough
> stuff in there to know the code quite a bit.
I think that makes lots of sense, since defacto you already are :-)
If you feel like bikeshed, get_maintainers.pl also supports R: for
reviewer, but given that you also push patches to drm-misc M: for
maintainer feels more accurate.
I think given you've been reviewing and changing most of the code around dma-fences, it should be ok to add you as the maintainer for those bits?
-Daniel
Best,
Sumit.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
