Am 06.02.2013 16:58, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > Em Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:35:06 +0100 > Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> Am 05.02.2013 23:08, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: >>> Em Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:46:10 +0100 >>> Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>> >>>> Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork: >>>> ... >>>>> * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers >>>>> - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/ >>>>> was: New >>>>> now: RFC >>>> What's your plan with this patch ? >>>> We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now. >>>> Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution... >>> Well, you tagged it as RFC. I just marked as such at patchwork. I don't even >>> read patches tagged as [RFC] or [REVIEW], >> Uhm... even patches which are sent to you as the maintainer of the >> _driver_ ? >> Isn't commenting / reviewing patches the maintainers job ? >> >> >>> as those patches will be >>> resubmitted later by the patch author, if they're ok, or a new version will >>> be sent instead. >> That's what I'm asking you. Is this patch ok / ready ? >> Or can I generally conclude that patches are fine when there is no >> reaction on them ? > Frank, > > As you may notice, my main "job" with regards to media stuff is to be > the media core maintainer. My work as a driver maintainer or as a > developer is forced to go to a second plane, as my time is limited. > So, I generally trust that driver developers are doing the right > thing. > > ATM, I won't have anytime soon to test patches. So, if those patches > require any test from me, they'll need to be postponed to 3.10, as I'm > finishing the handling of the patches for 3.9 today. > > Also, from my side, there are simply too much patches sent to me, either > on my inbox (where I never read) and/or at linux-media ML. The last ones > I get from patchwork. Sometimes, even before picking the patches, I tag > everything with RFC or REVIEW on it as RFC. Then I handle the remaining > ones. This is to reduce the load to an acceptable work queue. > > So, if you think that the USB patches are ok, just send it to the ML > without tagging it, and I'll analyze and apply if I believe that they're > ok. I'll eventually test the em28xx driver later, when I found some time. > > If otherwise you think they may not be ready yet, the better to wait > for Devin to test, if it has some time, or send me a separate email asking > for me to test the patches. > > Regards, > Mauro Mauro, I know you are very busy and I agree that maintaining the media-tree has a higher priority than maintaining a driver. You are doing a good job and if there's anything I can do to make your life easier, please tell me ! But this is about regression which exists now for several weeks in the media-tree and we are getting close to the next merge window. As you have said yourself before, if you have set a patch to RFC, you usually never look at it again. Which means that this regression very likely makes it into mainline in a few days. Don't you think this is a valid case for people to bother you ? ;) Everthing you need to know to decide about this patch is written in the patch description and the reply I've sent. Anyway, I will resend the patch without RFC and I will also resend the ioctl-fixes series marked with REVIEW. For me, it seems to be unnecessary extra work for you, but if you prefer it that way - no problem for me. Regards, Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
