| Message ID | 1493829085-11864-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm@kernel.org, > otherwise they will not get picked up. Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure > the get_maintainers includes it. arm@kernel.org is not a mailing list, it is an alias to those who deal with those requests.
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm@kernel.org, > otherwise they will not get picked up. Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure > the get_maintainers includes it. There are other patches that go through arm@kernel.org like arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS entry (I don't remember the reasons).
On 05/03/2017 12:01 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: >> > Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm@kernel.org, >> > otherwise they will not get picked up. Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure >> > the get_maintainers includes it. > There are other patches that go through arm@kernel.org like > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS > entry (I don't remember the reasons). I'm happy to add additional paths/files, but without a MAINTAINERS entry, how would anyone know to CC: that address? I posted 3 versions of my defconfig patchset before someone told me that I had to send it to arm@kernel.org. Anyway, I really hope it's not too late for my defconfig changes to make 4.12. Please consider them. Thank you.
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:08:21PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 05/03/2017 12:01 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > >> > Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm@kernel.org, > >> > otherwise they will not get picked up. Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure > >> > the get_maintainers includes it. > > There are other patches that go through arm@kernel.org like > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS > > entry (I don't remember the reasons). > > I'm happy to add additional paths/files, but without a MAINTAINERS entry, > how would anyone know to CC: that address? I posted 3 versions of my > defconfig patchset before someone told me that I had to send it to > arm@kernel.org. Most of the time it's the arm-soc guys pushing changes to defconfig, though on occasion the arm64 maintainers make some changes as well. > Anyway, I really hope it's not too late for my defconfig changes to make > 4.12. Please consider them. Thank you. I'm usually fine with such updates immediately after -rc1 but I can't speak for the arm-soc folk.
Hello, On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 05/03/2017 12:01 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: >>> > Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm@kernel.org, >>> > otherwise they will not get picked up. Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure >>> > the get_maintainers includes it. >> There are other patches that go through arm@kernel.org like >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS >> entry (I don't remember the reasons). > > I'm happy to add additional paths/files, but without a MAINTAINERS entry, > how would anyone know to CC: that address? I posted 3 versions of my > defconfig patchset before someone told me that I had to send it to > arm@kernel.org. arm@kernel.org as an email alias will break down if it starts being cc:d on large number of patches. Ideally we want the platform maintainers as filters/reviewers in front to keep the volume down. So far it's been kept to nearly only material from maintainers, and mostly pull requests. Defconfig changes usually come in through maintainers. Said maintainers already know to send code to us at arm@kernel.org for their platforms. So this should probably go in through Andy Gross? You didn't even cc him, so added now. > Anyway, I really hope it's not too late for my defconfig changes to make > 4.12. Please consider them. Thank you. We won't consider any patches at this very time, since we're in the middle of the merge window. Main priority right now is to prepare the material we have for pull requests and merge. This is not the time to send us new material, but you probably already know that. -Olof
On 05/03/2017 12:26 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > arm@kernel.org as an email alias will break down if it starts being > cc:d on large number of patches. Ideally we want the platform > maintainers as filters/reviewers in front to keep the volume down. So > far it's been kept to nearly only material from maintainers, and > mostly pull requests. > > Defconfig changes usually come in through maintainers. Said > maintainers already know to send code to us at arm@kernel.org for > their platforms. So this should probably go in through Andy Gross? You > didn't even cc him, so added now. How would I know to CC: him, or anyone else, without a MAINTAINERS entry? I've already posted these patches 5 times, and every time I do, someone tells me that I'm CCing the wrong person. Are you saying that I should send the 9 patches to 9 different people, and just pray that they all get merged in properly? Each of the maintainers is going to ask for an ACK from an ARM maintainer anyway, whoever he is (I don't know any more). There's got to be a better way. > We won't consider any patches at this very time, since we're in the > middle of the merge window. Main priority right now is to prepare the > material we have for pull requests and merge. > > This is not the time to send us new material, but you probably already > know that. Fair enough, but the patches aren't new. They've been been floating on the list for three weeks now.
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 05/03/2017 12:26 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> arm@kernel.org as an email alias will break down if it starts being >> cc:d on large number of patches. Ideally we want the platform >> maintainers as filters/reviewers in front to keep the volume down. So >> far it's been kept to nearly only material from maintainers, and >> mostly pull requests. >> >> Defconfig changes usually come in through maintainers. Said >> maintainers already know to send code to us at arm@kernel.org for >> their platforms. So this should probably go in through Andy Gross? You >> didn't even cc him, so added now. > > How would I know to CC: him, or anyone else, without a MAINTAINERS entry? > I've already posted these patches 5 times, and every time I do, someone > tells me that I'm CCing the wrong person. There's a handy tool called get_maintainer: olof@brutus:~/work/linux ((52aa3ec...)) $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/arm64/configs/defconfig Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> (maintainer:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE),commit_signer:6/61=10%) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> (maintainer:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)) Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> (commit_signer:10/61=16%) Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> (commit_signer:9/61=15%,authored:6/61=10%) Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> (commit_signer:6/61=10%) Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> (commit_signer:6/61=10%) If you read the output, you can see that the people who have applied most of these patches have been Will, Arnd, Kevin and myself. Adding those on Cc could have been a good first step. > Are you saying that I should send the 9 patches to 9 different people, and > just pray that they all get merged in properly? Each of the maintainers is > going to ask for an ACK from an ARM maintainer anyway, whoever he is (I > don't know any more). > > There's got to be a better way. No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer to help guide you through the system if needed. >> We won't consider any patches at this very time, since we're in the >> middle of the merge window. Main priority right now is to prepare the >> material we have for pull requests and merge. >> >> This is not the time to send us new material, but you probably already >> know that. > > Fair enough, but the patches aren't new. They've been been floating on the > list for three weeks now. While I understand your frustration, this is also not how it works at our end. Sometimes we tweak defconfigs late in the merge window and sometimes even during early -rc, so let us get back to this after we've handled the merges. -Olof
On 05/03/2017 12:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through > Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer > to help guide you through the system if needed. Will told me that defconfig patches should go to arm@kernel.org, but you're telling me they should go to Andy instead. Andy's being the platform maintainer is news to me. I'm not saying he isn't, but I can't remember the last time I involved him in any patches of ours. Either way, I think there should be a designated maintainer for arch/arm64/configs/defconfig, and I think that person/alias should be in MAINTAINERS. > Sometimes we tweak defconfigs late in the merge window and sometimes > even during early -rc, so let us get back to this after we've handled > the merges. Ok, thank you.
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 05/03/2017 12:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through > > Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer > > to help guide you through the system if needed. > > Will told me that defconfig patches should go to arm@kernel.org, but you're > telling me they should go to Andy instead. defconfig patches go via arm@kernel.org, because they pick them up from the platform maintainers. However, given that the merge window is open (and my understanding is that you want these in for 4.12!), I suggested mailing them directly to arm@kernel.org to get their opinion, which they promptly provided ;) Apologies for the confusion, Will
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 05/03/2017 12:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through > > Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer > > to help guide you through the system if needed. > > Will told me that defconfig patches should go to arm@kernel.org, but you're > telling me they should go to Andy instead. > > Andy's being the platform maintainer is news to me. I'm not saying he > isn't, but I can't remember the last time I involved him in any patches of ours. If it is Qualcomm related, it generally goes through me. And I send it up through the arm soc guys (kevin, olof, and arnd). > > Either way, I think there should be a designated maintainer for > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig, and I think that person/alias should be in > MAINTAINERS. I disagree here. We've generally had defconfigs go up through the disparate ARM board maintainers and they get collated by arm-soc. It's easy when it's something like qcom_defconfig, but get_maintainer doesn't give you the correct name if you are going for multiv7 or some of the default configs. Andy
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 58590cf..da2b06b 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -2066,6 +2066,13 @@ S: Maintained F: arch/arm64/ F: Documentation/arm64/ +ARM64 DEFCONFIG +M: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> +M: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> +L: arm@kernel.org +S: Maintained +F: arch/arm64/configs/defconfig + AS3645A LED FLASH CONTROLLER DRIVER M: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> L: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm@kernel.org, otherwise they will not get picked up. Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure the get_maintainers includes it. Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> --- MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)