On 1/11/21 8:09 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 07:55:24AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >> On 1/11/21 6:54 AM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:40:24AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >>>> On 1/10/21 10:57 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:43:54AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >>>>>> On 1/10/21 9:05 AM, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 07:46:29AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/7/21 8:09 AM, Tom Rix wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/21 8:37 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This is a resend of the previous (unfortunately late) patchset of >>>>>>>>>> changes for FPGA DFL. >>>>>>>>> Is there something I can do to help ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am paid to look after linux-fpga, so i have plenty of time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some ideas of what i am doing now privately i can do publicly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. keep linux-fpga sync-ed to greg's branch so linux-fpga is normally in a pullable state. >>>>>>> Is it not? It currently points to v5.11-rc1. If I start applying patches >>>>>>> that require the changes that went into Greg's branch I can merge. >>>>>> I mean the window between when we have staged patches and when they go into Greg's branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> We don't have any now, maybe those two trival ones. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since Greg's branch moves much faster than ours, our staging branch needs to be rebased regularly until its merge. >>>>> Ick, no! NEVER rebase a public branch. Why does it matter the speed of >>>>> my branch vs. anyone elses? Git handles merges very well. >>>>> >>>>> Just like Linus's branches move much faster than mine, and I don't >>>>> rebase my branches, you shouldn't rebase yours. >>>>> >>>>> Becides, I'm only taking _PATCHES_ for fpga changes at the moment, no >>>>> git pulls, so why does it matter at all for any of this? >>>>> >>>>> What is the problem you are trying to solve here? >>>> This 5.12 fpga patchset not making it into 5.11. >>> Ok, but isn't it the responsibility of the submitter to make sure they >>> apply properly when sending them out? >>> >>>> At some point before the 5.11 window, I tried it on next and it failed to merge. >>>> >>>> This points to needing some c/i so it does not happen again. >>> "again"? Merges and the like are a totally normal thing and happen all >>> the time, I still fail to understand what you are trying to "solve" for >>> here... >> What can I do to help make your merges as easy as possible ? > I have not had any problems with merges, I've only had "problems" > rejecting patches for their content. > > Try helping out with patch reviews if you want, finding and fixing > things before I review them is usually a good idea :) ok. > >> Does the patchwork infra Moritz was speaking of earlier need fixing help? > No idea, I don't use it. > >> Any other things ? > What problems are you trying to solve here? What's wrong with how this > subsystem is working that you are feeling needs to be addressed? I do not believe the issue I raised in 5.10 has made any progress. If you look at the content in 5.11 we have actually regressed. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fpga/3295710c-5e82-7b97-43de-99b9870a8c8c@xxxxxxxxxx/ Over the last two releases, I have shown i have the time and interest to maintain this subsystem. So I am asking for diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 11b38acb4c08..269cd08f4969 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -6951,7 +6951,7 @@ F: drivers/net/ethernet/nvidia/* FPGA DFL DRIVERS M: Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> -R: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> +M: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> L: linux-fpga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx S: Maintained F: Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-dfl* @@ -6962,7 +6962,7 @@ F: include/uapi/linux/fpga-dfl.h FPGA MANAGER FRAMEWORK M: Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx> -R: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> +M: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> L: linux-fpga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx S: Maintained W: http://www.rocketboards.org And to use/maintain my fpga-next and fpga-testing as official kernel.org branches. Tom > > confused, > > greg k-h >
