On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 15:18 +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote: > On Jul 1 12:34, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 30.06.2020 um 22:36 hat Klaus Jensen geschrieben: > > > On Jun 30 08:42, Keith Busch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:09:46PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > > > What I see doable for the following days is: > > > > > - hw/block/nvme: Fix I/O BAR structure [3] > > > > > - hw/block/nvme: handle transient dma errors > > > > > - hw/block/nvme: bump to v1.3 > > > > > > > > These look like sensible patches to rebase future work on, IMO. The 1.3 > > > > updates had been prepared a while ago, at least. > > > > > > I think Philippe's "hw/block/nvme: Fix I/O BAR structure" series is a > > > no-brainer. It just needs to get in asap. > > > > I think we need to talk about how nvme patches are supposed to get > > merged. I'm not familiar with the hardware nor the code, so the model > > was that I just blindly merge patches that Keith has reviewed/acked, > > just to spare him the work to prepare a pull request. But obviously, we > > started doing things this way when there was a lot less activity around > > the nvme emulation. > > > > If we find that this doesn't scale any more, maybe we need to change > > something. > > Honestly, I do not think the current model has worked very well for some > time; especially for larger series where I, for one, has felt that my > work was largely ignored due to a lack of designated reviewers. Things > only picked up when Beata, Maxim and Philippe started reviewing my > series - maybe out of pity or because I was bombing the list, I don't > know ;) > > We've also seen good patches from Andrzej linger on the list for quite a > while, prompting a number of RESENDs. I only recently allocated more > time and upped my review game, but I hope that contributors feel that > stuff gets reviewed in a timely fashion by now. > > Please understand that this is in NO WAY a criticism of Keith who > already made it very clear to me that he did not have a lot time to > review, but only ack the odd patch. > > > Depending on how much time Keith can spend on review in the > > near future and how much control he wants to keep over the development, > > I could imagine adding Klaus to MAINTAINERS, either as a co-maintainer > > or as a reviewer. Then I could rely on reviews/acks from either of you > > for merging series. > > > > I would be happy to step up (officially) to help maintain the device > with Keith and review on a daily basis, and my position can support > this. > > > Of course, the patches don't necessarily have to go through my tree > > either if this only serves to complicate things these days. If sending > > separate pull requests directly to Peter would make things easier, I > > certainly wouldn't object. > > > > I don't think there is any reason to by-pass your tree. I think the > volume would need to increase even further for that to make sense. > It my fault as well - I need to get back to reviewing these. (I'll review few of them today I hope)
Best regards, Maxim Levitsky