Hi Mauro, On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 02:23:34PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:40:44 +0000 > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> escreveu: > > > 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. > > Do you have a proposal for a different text here? How about: In the Linux Media community developers with formal status are classified as follows. > > > > > > +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/ > > Here, we're talking specifically about my hole and Hans, which will > co-maintain the subsystem with me.. I guess subsystem maintainer is the > best to describe it. > > Besides that, we used "media maintainers" in the past with a different > meaning. Better to not re-use it here. Seems good, although... > > > > ? > > > + responsible for the subsystem as a whole, with access to the I'd do here: s/subsystem/Media tree/ or s/subsystem/Media subsystem/ > > > + 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. > > At the first moment, the idea is to commit them via PRs. So, no such > commits will be merged by committers/core committers, but yeah, it > could also be merged directly by a committer if it has our approval. > > In any case, such changes need a consensus from the subsystem maintainers, > which can just be based on a trust relationship between them with > regards to certain parts of the subsystem, or via explicit acks. > > Maybe: > > API/ABI changes are done via consensus between subsystem > maintainers. > > Only subsystem maintainers push changes that affect the userspace > API/ABI. Committers may push directly if they have approvals > from subsystem maintainers. Seems good to me. These could be in the same paragraph. > > > What constitutes a UAPI change is a topic of discussion on its own. > > Everything that would break backward compatibility with existing non-kernel > code are API/ABI changes. > > > Does it > > require adding a new IOCTL? Taking into use a reserved field? Changing > > little-used driver behaviour slightly? > > For all of those, yes: any changes affecting the behavior or fields/nodes > exported via ioctls and sysfs, including new V4L2 controls are API/ABI changes. > > Some changes at OF are also API/ABI changes, but those can flow via > committers, provided that OF maintainers added their review or acked-by. > > > Fixing a bug in a driver? > > No, fixing a bug, even if related to ABI/API non-compliance aren't. > > Yet, ABI/API behavior changes at drivers shall not cause regressions. > > I don't think we need to let it clear at the text Works for me. > > > 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". > > We can add an alias there, but better to be explicit about what mailing > list we're referring to. The list is known as the Linux Media mailing list. We should refer it by that name or an abbreviation (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. > > > Not really a change: this is what we do in practice (except that we renamed > master to next). I mean fixes in particular. Fixes are generally meant for an *upcoming* release, not a past release, and primarily fixing issues that have been introduced in that cycle. Other bugfixes should go through the normal process. How about adding: Patches with security implications should be handled using a different process defined in Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst. > > We did discuss that during the LPC week. There was a request there about > simplifying the trees during media summit with some suggestions. I did a > followup meeting with Hans afterwards for us to check what would work best. > > The change is, basically: > media-tree master -> media.git next > media-tree fixes -> media.git fixes > > media-stage master -> media-committers next > > Subsystem maintainers are also merging patches at media-committers fixes, > in order to let media-ci to test the fixes branch. > > As agreed during the media summit, only subsystem maintainers will be > merging fixes patches. > > > > + > > > +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/ > > maybe, instead: e-mail to LMML. Sounds good. > > > (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. > > Ok. > > > > > > + 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/ > > Ok. > > > > > > + > > > +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>`/ > > No need. A Sphinx plugin does that automatically. Ack. > > > > > > > > > -- 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
