| Message ID | 20191221155306.49221-1-jhogan@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | MAINTAINERS: Orphan MIPS KVM CPUs | expand |
Cc'ing qemu-trivial@ & Paolo. On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 5:42 PM James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> wrote: > > I haven't been active for 18 months, and don't have the hardware set up > to test KVM for MIPS, so mark it as orphaned and remove myself as > maintainer. Hopefully somebody from MIPS can pick this up. > > Signed-off-by: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> > Cc: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> > Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> > Cc: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com> > Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > --- > MAINTAINERS | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 740401bcbb86..a798ad2b0b8a 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -363,9 +363,8 @@ S: Maintained > F: target/arm/kvm.c > > MIPS KVM CPUs > -M: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> > R: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> > -S: Maintained > +S: Orphan > F: target/mips/kvm.c > > PPC KVM CPUs > -- > 2.24.0 > >
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:44 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philippe@mathieu-daude.net> wrote: > > Cc'ing qemu-trivial@ & Paolo. > We are in the process of handling this within the company, and this patch should go via MIPS tree, not trivial tree - will be updated when the opinions are crystallized, and all consultations with others were done. There is no rush. Thanks, Aleksandar > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 5:42 PM James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > I haven't been active for 18 months, and don't have the hardware set up > > to test KVM for MIPS, so mark it as orphaned and remove myself as > > maintainer. Hopefully somebody from MIPS can pick this up. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> > > Cc: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> > > Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> > > Cc: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com> > > Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index 740401bcbb86..a798ad2b0b8a 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -363,9 +363,8 @@ S: Maintained > > F: target/arm/kvm.c > > > > MIPS KVM CPUs > > -M: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> > > R: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> > > -S: Maintained > > +S: Orphan > > F: target/mips/kvm.c > > > > PPC KVM CPUs > > -- > > 2.24.0 > > > > >
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 01:34:57AM +0100, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:44 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé > <philippe@mathieu-daude.net> wrote: > > > > Cc'ing qemu-trivial@ & Paolo. > > > > We are in the process of handling this within the company, and this > patch should go via MIPS tree, not trivial tree - will be updated when > the opinions are crystallized, and all consultations with others were > done. There is no rush. Hi Aleksandar, I respectfully disagree. In the mean time I am still listed as maintainer even though this patch has reflected reality for more than 18 months since the 2018 closure of the MIPS UK offices. If "the company" wish to eventually crystalize their opinion and assign someone else this role (which they've had at least 6 weeks to do even since I sent the patch) they can always submit a new patch. In the mean time I'd appreciate if somebody could take the patch ASAP. All the best, James
On 16/02/20 07:57, James Hogan wrote: >> We are in the process of handling this within the company, and this >> patch should go via MIPS tree, not trivial tree - will be updated when >> the opinions are crystallized, and all consultations with others were >> done. There is no rush. > Hi Aleksandar, > > I respectfully disagree. In the mean time I am still listed as > maintainer even though this patch has reflected reality for more than 18 > months since the 2018 closure of the MIPS UK offices. > > If "the company" wish to eventually crystalize their opinion and assign > someone else this role (which they've had at least 6 weeks to do even > since I sent the patch) they can always submit a new patch. > > In the mean time I'd appreciate if somebody could take the patch ASAP. I agree with James, the situation has already crystallized long before the opinions will have. You have done excellent work on the TCG side, but neither the kernel nor the QEMU side of KVM have seen any significant activity. If your employer becomes more interested in KVM then the status can be changed. I think it's okay if we delay the patch a couple weeks more (which is more or less when Laurent or I will send the next pull request), but certainly not past 5.0 soft freeze. Thanks, Paolo
On Sunday, February 16, 2020, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > On 16/02/20 07:57, James Hogan wrote: > >> We are in the process of handling this within the company, and this > >> patch should go via MIPS tree, not trivial tree - will be updated when > >> the opinions are crystallized, and all consultations with others were > >> done. There is no rush. > > Hi Aleksandar, > > > > I respectfully disagree. In the mean time I am still listed as > > maintainer even though this patch has reflected reality for more than 18 > > months since the 2018 closure of the MIPS UK offices. > > > > If "the company" wish to eventually crystalize their opinion and assign > > someone else this role (which they've had at least 6 weeks to do even > > since I sent the patch) they can always submit a new patch. > > > > In the mean time I'd appreciate if somebody could take the patch ASAP. > > I agree with James, the situation has already crystallized long before > the opinions will have. You have done excellent work on the TCG side, > but neither the kernel nor the QEMU side of KVM have seen any > significant activity. If your employer becomes more interested in KVM > then the status can be changed. > > I think it's okay if we delay the patch a couple weeks more (which is > more or less when Laurent or I will send the next pull request), but > certainly not past 5.0 soft freeze. > > OK, I will add the patch in the next MIPS queue, since I think its significance is more than trivial. It will be sent no later than two weeks from now. I just wanted the patch to be in the same queue when we will provide replacement. But, honestly, if the factual state lasted that long, I don't see the reason for such sudden hurry, do you? I do not act alone (as an independant person) in this community, I represent the company I am working for (in this case Wave, the owner of MIPS), and of course I need from time to time to consult other people, which takes some tome sometimes. Most of you are, I guess, in the same situation from time to time. Of course I respect James' decision, although I am trully sorry about it. My only slight objection is that James should have sent this patch sooner, rather than just leave an impression that there is a maintainer, while in fact there wasn't. What did you wait? But, never mind, I understand your hesitation. The best outcome would be that James remained in that role (I do remember him as an excellent, thorough engineer, that is approachable and very helpful to others), but what can we do now. I wish we work together in future, who knows? Thanks, James, for taking care of KVM for MIPS for number of years! Thanks to all too, Aleksandar > Thanks, > > Paolo > >
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 05:33:44PM +0100, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > OK, I will add the patch in the next MIPS queue, since I think its > significance is more than trivial. It will be sent no later than two weeks > from now. Thanks Aleksandar. > I just wanted the patch to be in the same queue when we will > provide replacement. But, honestly, if the factual state lasted that long, > I don't see the reason for such sudden hurry, do you? Yes. My main reasons for not wanting this dragged out any longer are: 1) Personally, I just want to let go of it now, and that's slightly harder to do when I'm still keeping an eye on whether this patch is merged yet, or worse, waiting for Wave to act. 2) In principle it feels wrong to delay a maintainer's name being removed at their own request (even if it came late!) for an indeterminate amount of time. This patch simply shouldn't be blocked waiting for Wave to make a decision I've been waiting to see if it would make for too long already. 3) Maybe publicly recognising the orphaned state might motivate Wave or others to step up and take a lead with further development. > Of course I respect James' decision, although I am trully sorry about it. > My only slight objection is that James should have sent this patch sooner, > rather than just leave an impression that there is a maintainer, while in > fact there wasn't. What did you wait? LOL, well I doubt MIPS (as a company) was under any illusion since they pulled the trigger :-P Seriously though, I intended to keep an eye on things in my own time (both on kernel & QEMU side) and just be ready to answer questions and hand over the reigns if/when somebody from Wave got up to speed. I was probably also wary of making MIPS look bad for closing their UK operation (again) and "orphaning" my code (that I was probably too emotionally invested in, LOL!). In practice Paul took care of the MIPS arch stuff and there was virtually no activity on the MIPS KVM front from Wave so real life mostly pushed it off my radar. I did discuss orphaning it with Paul last year but there was mention of Wave folk getting up to speed with it so I held off for a bit longer. Anyway FWIW I'm sorry for any confusion caused by my hesitation. > But, never mind, I understand your > hesitation. The best outcome would be that James remained in that role (I > do remember him as an excellent, thorough engineer, that is approachable > and very helpful to others), but what can we do now. I wish we work > together in future, who knows? Thanks, James, for taking care of KVM for > MIPS for number of years! Thanks, my pleasure. Cheers James
On Saturday, December 21, 2019, James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> wrote: > I haven't been active for 18 months, and don't have the hardware set up > to test KVM for MIPS, so mark it as orphaned and remove myself as > maintainer. Hopefully somebody from MIPS can pick this up. > > Signed-off-by: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> > Cc: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> > Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> > Cc: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com> > Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > --- Reviewed-by: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com> > MAINTAINERS | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 740401bcbb86..a798ad2b0b8a 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -363,9 +363,8 @@ S: Maintained > F: target/arm/kvm.c > > MIPS KVM CPUs > -M: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> > R: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> > -S: Maintained > +S: Orphan > F: target/mips/kvm.c > > PPC KVM CPUs > -- > 2.24.0 > > >
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 740401bcbb86..a798ad2b0b8a 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -363,9 +363,8 @@ S: Maintained F: target/arm/kvm.c MIPS KVM CPUs -M: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> R: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> -S: Maintained +S: Orphan F: target/mips/kvm.c PPC KVM CPUs
I haven't been active for 18 months, and don't have the hardware set up to test KVM for MIPS, so mark it as orphaned and remove myself as maintainer. Hopefully somebody from MIPS can pick this up. Signed-off-by: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org> Cc: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@rt-rk.com> Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> Cc: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org --- MAINTAINERS | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)