Hi Mauro, Thanks for the set. Looks good overall, please still see my comments below. On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 10:26:19AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > As the media subsystem will experiment with a multi-committers model, > update the Maintainer's entry profile to the new rules. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 208 ++++++++++++++---- > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > index ffc712a5f632..dc764163cf1c 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > @@ -27,19 +27,139 @@ It covers, mainly, the contents of those directories: > Both media userspace and Kernel APIs are documented and the documentation > must be kept in sync with the API changes. It means that all patches that > add new features to the subsystem must also bring changes to the > -corresponding API files. > +corresponding API documentation files. > > -Due to the size and wide scope of the media subsystem, media's > -maintainership model is to have sub-maintainers that have a broad > -knowledge of a specific aspect of the subsystem. It is the sub-maintainers' > -task to review the patches, providing feedback to users if the patches are > +Due to the size and wide scope of the media subsystem, the media's > +maintainership model is to have committers that have a broad knowledge of > +a specific aspect of the subsystem. It is the committers' task to > +review the patches, providing feedback to users if the patches are > following the subsystem rules and are properly using the media kernel and > userspace APIs. > > -Patches for the media subsystem must be sent to the media mailing list > -at linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as plain text only e-mail. Emails with > -HTML will be automatically rejected by the mail server. It could be wise > -to also copy the sub-maintainer(s). > +Media committers > +---------------- > + > +In the media subsystem, there are experienced developers who can push The media subsystem is generally understood to comprise of what's under drivers/media, this should be referring to the community instead. > +patches directly to the development tree. These developers are called > +Media committers and are divided into the following categories: > + > +- Committers: > + contributors for one or more drivers within the media subsystem. > + They can push changes to the tree that do not affect the core or ABI. > + > +- Core committers: > + responsible for part of the media core. They are typically > + responsible for one or more drivers within the media subsystem, but, besides > + that, they can also merge patches that change the code common to multiple > + drivers, including the kernel internal API. > + > +- Subsystem maintainers: s/Subsystem/Media tree/ ? > + responsible for the subsystem as a whole, with access to the > + entire subsystem. > + > + Only subsystem maintainers can push changes that affect the userspace > + API/ABI. This is ambiguous. I think it should intend to say API/ABI changes require approval from Media tree maintainers. What constitutes a UAPI change is a topic of discussion on its own. Does it require adding a new IOCTL? Taking into use a reserved field? Changing little-used driver behaviour slightly? Fixing a bug in a driver? The first two obviously yes, but the latter two probably not. Also: s/Only subsystem maintainers can push/Media tree maintainers' ack is required for/ ? > + > +All media committers shall explicitly agree with the Kernel development process > +as described at Documentation/process/index.rst and to the Kernel > +development rules inside the Kernel documentation, including its code of > +conduct. > + > +Media development tree > +---------------------- > + > +The main development tree used by the media subsystem is hosted at LinuxTV.org, > +where we also maintain news about the subsystem, wiki pages and a patchwork > +instance where we track patches though their lifetime. > + > +The main tree used by media developers is at: > + > +https://git.linuxtv.org/media.git/ > + > +.. _Media development workflow: > + > +Media development workflow > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + > +All changes for the media subsystem must be sent first as e-mails to the > +media mailing list, following the process documented at s/^/linux-/ Also I'd refer to it as "LMML". > +Documentation/process/index.rst. > + > +It means that patches shall be submitted as plain text only via e-mail to > +linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While subscription is not mandatory, you > +can find details about how to subscribe to it and to see its archives at: > + > + https://subspace.kernel.org/vger.kernel.org.html > + > +Emails with HTML will be automatically rejected by the mail server. > + > +It could be wise to also copy the media committer(s). You should use > +``scripts/get_maintainers.pl`` to identify whom else needs to be copied. > +Please always copy driver's authors and maintainers. > + > +Such patches need to be based against a public branch or tag as follows: > + > +1. Patches for new features need to be based at the ``next`` branch of > + media.git tree; > + > +2. Fixes against an already released kernel should preferably be against > + the latest released Kernel. If they require a previously-applied > + change at media.git tree, they need to be against its ``fixes`` branch. This would be a change to the current process that I don't think has been discussed. If I understand correctly, generally this applies to patches that have been merged to the development branch (formerly media stage tree master) with Cc: stable and Fixes: tags. > + > +3. Fixes for issues not present at the latest released kernel shall > + be either against a -rc kernel for an upcoming release or > + against the ``fixes`` branch of the media.git tree. > + > +Patches with fixes shall have: > + > +- a ``Fixes:`` tag pointing to the first commit that introduced the bug; > +- when applicable, a ``Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx``. > + > +Patches that were fixing bugs publicly reported by someone at the > +linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list shall have: > + > +- a ``Reported-by:`` tag immediately followed by a ``Closes:`` tag. > + > +Patches that change API shall update documentation accordingly at the > +same patch series. > + > +See Documentation/process/index.rst for more details about e-mail submission. > + > +Once a patch is submitted, it may follow either one of the following > +workflows: > + > +a. Pull request workflow: patches are handled by subsystem maintainers:: > + > + +------+ +---------+ +-------+ +-----------------------+ +---------+ > + |e-mail|-->|patchwork|-->|pull |-->|maintainers merge |-->|media.git| s/e-mail/LMML/ (see earlier comment)? Same below. > + +------+ |picks it | |request| |in media-committers.git| +---------+ > + +---------+ +-------+ +-----------------------+ > + > + For this workflow, pull requests can be generated by a committer, > + a previous committer, subsystem maintainers or by a trusted long-time s/previous/former/ I'd also use plural in all cases here. > + contributor. If you are not in such group, please don't submit > + pull requests, as they will not be processed. > + > +b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: > + > + +------+ +---------+ +--------------------+ +-----------+ +---------+ > + |e-mail|-->|patchwork|-->|committers merge at |-->|maintainers|-->|media.git| > + +------+ |picks it | |media-committers.git| |approval | +---------+ > + +---------+ +--------------------+ +-----------+ > + > +On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at > +linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx before being merged at media-committers.git. > + > +When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, > +CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about > +patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or > +explain why the errors are false positives. > + > +Patches will only be moved to the next stage in those two workflows if they > +don't fail on CI or if there are false-positives in the CI reports. s/don't fail on/pass/ > + > +Failures during e-mail submission > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Media's workflow is heavily based on Patchwork, meaning that, once a patch > is submitted, the e-mail will first be accepted by the mailing list > @@ -47,51 +167,48 @@ server, and, after a while, it should appear at: > > - https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/list/ > > -If it doesn't automatically appear there after a few minutes, then > +If it doesn't automatically appear there after some time [2]_, then > probably something went wrong on your submission. Please check if the > -email is in plain text\ [2]_ only and if your emailer is not mangling > +email is in plain text\ [3]_ only and if your emailer is not mangling > whitespaces before complaining or submitting them again. > > -You can check if the mailing list server accepted your patch, by looking at: > +To troubleshoot problems, you should first check if the mailing list > +server has accepted your patch, by looking at: > > - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/ > > -.. [2] If your email contains HTML, the mailing list server will simply > +If the patch is there and not at patchwork, it is likely that your e-mailer > +mangled the patch. Patchwork internally has a logic that checks if the > +received e-mail contain a valid patch. Any whitespace and new line > +breakages mangling the patch won't be recognized by patchwork, thus such > +patch will be rejected. > + > +.. [2] It usually takes a few minutes for the patch to arrive, but > + the e-mail server may be busy, so it may take up to a few hours > + for a patch to be picked by patchwork. > + > +.. [3] If your email contains HTML, the mailing list server will simply > drop it, without any further notice. > > +.. _media-developers-gpg: > > -Media maintainers > -+++++++++++++++++ > +Authentication for pull and merge requests > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > -At the media subsystem, we have a group of senior developers that > -are responsible for doing the code reviews at the drivers (also known as > -sub-maintainers), and another senior developer responsible for the > -subsystem as a whole. For core changes, whenever possible, multiple > -media maintainers do the review. > +The authenticity of developers submitting pull requests and merge requests > +shall be validated by using PGP sign. See: :ref:`kernel_org_trust_repository`. > > -The media maintainers that work on specific areas of the subsystem are: > +With the pull request workflow, pull requests shall use a PGP-signed tag. > > -- Remote Controllers (infrared): > - Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx> > +For more details about PGP sign, please read > +Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst. s/.*/:ref:`the PGP guide <pgpguide>`/ > > -- HDMI CEC: > - Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > +Subsystem maintainers > +--------------------- > > -- Media controller drivers: > - Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > - > -- ISP, v4l2-async, v4l2-fwnode, v4l2-flash-led-class and Sensor drivers: > - Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > - > -- V4L2 drivers and core V4L2 frameworks: > - Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > - > -The subsystem maintainer is: > - Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> > - > -Media maintainers may delegate a patch to other media maintainers as needed. > -On such case, checkpatch's ``delegate`` field indicates who's currently > -responsible for reviewing a patch. > +The subsystem maintainers are: > + - Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> and > + - Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > > Submit Checklist Addendum > ------------------------- > @@ -108,17 +225,14 @@ implementing the media APIs: > ==================== ======================================================= > Type Tool > ==================== ======================================================= > -V4L2 drivers\ [3]_ ``v4l2-compliance`` > +V4L2 drivers\ [4]_ ``v4l2-compliance`` > V4L2 virtual drivers ``contrib/test/test-media`` > CEC drivers ``cec-compliance`` > ==================== ======================================================= > > -.. [3] The ``v4l2-compliance`` also covers the media controller usage inside > +.. [4] The ``v4l2-compliance`` also covers the media controller usage inside > V4L2 drivers. > > -Other compilance tools are under development to check other parts of the > -subsystem. > - > Those tests need to pass before the patches go upstream. > > Also, please notice that we build the Kernel with:: > @@ -134,6 +248,8 @@ Where the check script is:: > Be sure to not introduce new warnings on your patches without a > very good reason. > > +Please see `Media development workflow`_ for e-mail submission rules. > + > Style Cleanup Patches > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > @@ -199,7 +315,7 @@ tree between -rc6 and the next -rc1. > Please notice that the media subsystem is a high traffic one, so it > could take a while for us to be able to review your patches. Feel free > to ping if you don't get a feedback in a couple of weeks or to ask > -other developers to publicly add Reviewed-by and, more importantly, > +other developers to publicly add ``Reviewed-by:`` and, more importantly, > ``Tested-by:`` tags. > > Please note that we expect a detailed description for ``Tested-by:``, > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 1e930c7a58b1..c77f56a2e695 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -14510,6 +14510,7 @@ MEDIA INPUT INFRASTRUCTURE (V4L/DVB) > M: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> > L: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > S: Maintained > +P: Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > W: https://linuxtv.org > Q: http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/list/ > T: git git://linuxtv.org/media.git -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
