On 1/11/21 10:21 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:43:15AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >> 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. > What issue? > >> If you look at the content in 5.11 we have actually regressed. > What bugs regressed? > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fpga/3295710c-5e82-7b97-43de-99b9870a8c8c@xxxxxxxxxx/ > I don't see the problem here, other than a low-quality of patches that > need reworking for some patchsets, and others are just fine. Just like > all kernel subsystems, I don't see anything odd here. > >> Over the last two releases, I have shown i have the time and interest to maintain this subsystem. > That's not how any of this works :) > >> 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> > That's generous, but how about doing review first, the maintainership of > this subsystem does not feel like any sort of bottleneck to me. I > personally have no problems with Moritz's interactions with the > community, his reviewing of patches, and forwarding on to me. > > Of course we all have delays as we have other work to do than just this, > that's just part of normal development. I don't see anything stalled at > the moment, nor anything that having another maintainer would have > helped out with at all, so this feels like it is not needed from my end. > > Again, it feels like the developers need more reviews, and good ones, so > please continue to help out with that, as that's the best thing I can > see to do here. I have been doing the first review in a couple of days after every patch landing. I see some pretty good response from the developers to fix the issues raised. But I do not see Moritz picking up the review until weeks later. This consistent delay in timely reviews is a bottleneck. It would be good if the big first reviews could be done in parallel. Tom > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
