Re: [PULL REQ] IXP4xx changes for Linux 3.7

[Richard Cochran]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:

>
> Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different.
> Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at
> this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at
> paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this.
>
> BTW since Imre has probably even much less time, it would be a good time
> to find someone to maintain IXP4xx code. I will be publishing (from time
> to time) my tree (I'm using the hw myself), so even simple
> cherry-picking would probably make some sense.

So if no one else wants to do this, then I am willing to look after
the IXP code. I think that I do have the time for it.

Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Arnd Bergmann <[hidden email]> writes:
> > Also, never rebase your tree immediately before sending a pull
> > request.
>
> I did not, of course. My mail stated:
> "Build-tested for now. This is based on your current tree tip because it
> depends on commits following 3.6 release."

You're lucky that you didn't get flamed by Linus himself for that, as
others _have_ been in the past.

> Normally I wouldn't rebase, but had to (as you well knew) - because you
> commited a conflicting patch to this very IXP4xx arch. Using your logic,
> you were supposed to get an Ack from me (or from Imre) for this patch.

If you had *bothered* asking the arm-soc people to pull your tree
_instead_ of Linus, then that problem becomes the arm-soc's problem, not
yours.  That  means _you_ end up with _less_ work to do.  Yet, instead
of seeing that benefit, whenever you've been asked to send your tree via
arm-soc, you throw your toys out of your pram and basically refuse.

So, you're making *more* work for yourself by not participating in
arm-soc (as I've explained to you before.)

The _ONLY_ thing you have to do is send your pull request to the arm-soc
people instead of Linus before the merge window opens.  You don't need to
rebase your stuff on a different tree, you can still use Linus' tree as
a basis.

You have offered no technical reason why you can't participate in arm-soc
which has stood up to screutiny.

The only reasons you've offered seem to be:

1. it'll be more work (untrue)
2. you look after platforms which aren't in mainline and you're not submitting
   to mainline.

Both of these a total nonsense arguments when it comes to the _route_ that
your patches make their way into mainline.  They have absolutely no bearing
on the path your changes take AT ALL.

> Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different.
> Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at
> this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at
> paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this.

As you're being difficult and not willing to co-operate, and for whatever
reason building this issue into a mountain, this unfortunately sounds to
me like a good thing.  Hopefully, a more co-operative maintainer will step
up in your place who can see the benefits.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Ryan Mallon]

On 18/10/12 09:01, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Hi,
>

<snip>

>
> Unfortunately, as I already explained to you in
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/29/37, my resources for IXP4xx are very
> limited (and this isn't a paid job) and I'm in no way able to do what
> you require. This, coupled with my inability to make the patches end up
> upstream any other way, will make me post relevant MAINTAINERS changes
> shortly.
>
> Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different.
> Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at
> this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at
> paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this.
>
> BTW since Imre has probably even much less time, it would be a good time
> to find someone to maintain IXP4xx code. I will be publishing (from time
> to time) my tree (I'm using the hw myself), so even simple
> cherry-picking would probably make some sense.

I maintain a tree for the ep93xx, which is another legacy arm soc. I
also do this as a hobbyist, not as a paid position. Pushing patches to
mainline via arm-soc has been very easy. Basically I branch from Linus's
tree (typically 3.x-rc1), apply patches to one of a bunch of branches
(-devel, -fixes, etc) and then send pull requests to the arm-soc
maintainers prior to the merge window. I also have a aggregate branch
which is tested in next.

It takes very little of my time to maintain this tree. I cannot see how
it could be any harder than sending to Linus directly. Also, the arm-soc
maintainers, Arnd and Olof, have been very helpful in getting me started
with my maintainer tree, and in learning the development flow.

I would also rather get flamed by the arm-soc guys than Linus when I
make a mistake :-).

~Ryan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 29 October 2012, Richard Cochran wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different.
> > Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at
> > this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at
> > paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this.
> >
> > BTW since Imre has probably even much less time, it would be a good time
> > to find someone to maintain IXP4xx code. I will be publishing (from time
> > to time) my tree (I'm using the hw myself), so even simple
> > cherry-picking would probably make some sense.
>
> So if no one else wants to do this, then I am willing to look after
> the IXP code. I think that I do have the time for it.

Thanks for the offer!

Jason Cooper was also volunteering to help out with this, and even we can't
convince Krzysztof to continue doing it, there is also Imre who is officially
listed as maintainer for IXP4xx and who has not commented on this. As Krzysztof
mentions, he probably doesn't have much time for it, but I'd like to give
him the chance to comment as well.

I'm sure we can find some solution between the four of you. Right now, I think
we should focus on getting the bug fixes from Krzysztof's tree into mainline
and the stable kernels where applicable, and then establish a better working
mode for the future kernels.

        Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Jason Cooper]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:27:55PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Monday 29 October 2012, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different.
> > > Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at
> > > this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at
> > > paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this.
> > >
> > > BTW since Imre has probably even much less time, it would be a good time
> > > to find someone to maintain IXP4xx code. I will be publishing (from time
> > > to time) my tree (I'm using the hw myself), so even simple
> > > cherry-picking would probably make some sense.
> >
> > So if no one else wants to do this, then I am willing to look after
> > the IXP code. I think that I do have the time for it.
>
> Thanks for the offer!

Yes, thank you!

> Jason Cooper was also volunteering to help out with this, and even we can't
> convince Krzysztof to continue doing it, there is also Imre who is officially
> listed as maintainer for IXP4xx and who has not commented on this. As Krzysztof
> mentions, he probably doesn't have much time for it, but I'd like to give
> him the chance to comment as well.

Agreed.

> I'm sure we can find some solution between the four of you. Right now, I think
> we should focus on getting the bug fixes from Krzysztof's tree into mainline
> and the stable kernels where applicable, and then establish a better working
> mode for the future kernels.

We also need to keep an eye on the big picture.  If we are going to
keep/maintain ixp4xx in the kernel, there are some things which need to
be done.  The drivers need moved to drivers/, platform headers need
moved to platform_data/, and we may as well add devicetree bindings
while we're moving things around.

Making ixp4xx compatible with multiplatform zImage would probably help
out the embedded distros as well.

thx,

Jason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [hidden email]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/