On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:10:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:39:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:23:50PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev
> > > > > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series.
> > > >
> > > > I find it obnoxious to send a new series within 24 hours of the first,
> > > > while the discussion is still in progress, and it's a misrepresentation
> > > > of the in-progress dicussion to say most of the feedback was positive.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the way to reach consensus.
> > >
> > > Let me tell you I didn't had any obnoxious intentions when sending this
> > > new series. I honestly still think that the feedback was mostly positive
> > > to the idea to get rid of struct drm_device *dev. Most discussion was
> > > about splitting the series and the right name to use instead of "dev".
> >
> > And then you have a former and current maintainers that tell you that
> > they'd prefer not to merge it at all.
>
> I went back to the previous thread rereading the replies I got yesterday
> (i.e. the ones I was aware when I started to respin the series). By then
> following people stated their opinion:
Let's focus on the roles then:
> - Paul Kocialkowski
> Is happy with the status quo
> naming: drm_dev > { drmdev, drm }
drm-misc driver maintainer
> - Thomas Zimmermann
> All data structures should be converted
> naming: drm > *
drm-misc maintainer (actually opposed to it)
> - Javier Martinez Canillas
> Generally in favour (also via irc)
> Wants a single patch
> naming: drm > drm_dev > dev
drm-misc driver maintainer
> - Russell King
> Sent a "Reviewed-by, Thanks"
DRM driver maintainer, hasn't contributed in a while to DRM, I think?
> - Christan König
> Wants a single patch
> naming: don't care
dmabuf, amdgpu, radeon DRM maintainer, pretty much against?
> - Maxime Ripard
> Wants a single patch
drm-misc maintainer
> - Sui Jingfeng
> no union
> naming: { drm, ddev } > drm_dev > dev
drm-misc driver maintainer
> - Luben Tuikov
> Wants a single patch
> naming: drm_dev > { drm, dev }
drm/scheduler maintainer
> - Jani Nikula
> unnecessary change.(is this a "no" or a "don't care"?)
> naming: drm > *
Intel DRM maintainer
> - Sean Paul
> doesn't like this change
former drm-misc maintainer
So, on the record, we have 1 drm-misc maintainer, 1 intel GPU
maintainer, 1 amdgpu/radeon/dma-buf maintainer and one former drm-misc
maintainer pretty much against, or at best skeptical. And you don't have
similar or higher maintainers to match any of them. If there's a
consensus, I'm afraid it doesn't really go your way.
So if you want to get this through, I'd suggest to at least try to
convince them or continue the discussion. And before you reach that
point, sending more versions is only going to frustrate both ends of the
discussion.
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
