On Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2020 08:15:55 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Cristian, > > On 10/20/20 1:54 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 12:00:57 CEST Greg Kurz wrote: > >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:43:18 +0200 > >> > >> Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote: > >>> On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 09:36:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>>> On 10/8/20 8:34 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > >>>>> All existing 9pfs test cases are using the 'synth' fs driver so far, > >>>>> which > >>>>> means they are not accessing real files, but a purely simulated (in > >>>>> RAM > >>>>> only) file system. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's make this clear by changing the prefix of the individual qtest > >>>>> case > >>>>> names from 'fs/' to 'synth/'. That way they'll be easily > >>>>> distinguishable > >>>>> from upcoming new 9pfs test cases supposed to be using a different fs > >>>>> driver. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> > >>>>> Message-Id: > >>>>> <e04e75acb849b085c6d6320b2433a15fa935bcff.1602182956.git.qemu_oss@crud > >>>>> eby > >>>>> te.com> Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> > >>>> > >>>> Harmless, but don't need to sign twice ;) > >>> > >>> Ah, I thought that's the common way, as Greg's PRs contained 2 SOBs as > >>> well, i.e. I thought this was intended to outline the patch author and > >>> submaintainer were the same person. > >>> > >>> BTW I actually did not explicitly add the 2nd SOB. It was rather added > >>> by > >>> the patchwork client automatically. So maybe it should be fixed in the > >>> client to detect an already existing SOB line? Or am missing something > >>> here? > >> > >> Yeah this is the reason why my sob appears twice on patches authored by > >> me, and since this is harmless I never really investigated how to fix > >> pwclient :) > > > > Well, I would usually offer my 'I can look at it' at this point, but I am > > reluctant this time as I assume it will end up as my recently suggested > > libqos patches where I did not get any response from the officially > > assigned maintainers; not even a simple 'nack'. > > I was just watching your contributions and suggested an improvement > because something in your new workflow seems mis-configured (other > maintainers don't have this problem). I didn't asked you to fix a > bug in a different tool. I apologize if I was unclear and you > understood it this way.
You actually did not raise that expectation to me Philippe, so definitely no need to apologize. But I appreciate it! Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAICS I'm actually not the only one being affected by this double-SOB issue. A short glimpse at the logs and I see for instance 3e7e134d827790c3714cae1d5b8aff8612000116 having it as well. So I guess everyone having the following two options enabled in pwclientrc: msgid=on signoff=on will have that issue. > Regarding your issue with a different series, I suppose you already > read: > https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch#If_your_patch_seems_to_have_be > en_ignored and > https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch#Return_the_favor > > You'll see that maintenance can be very time consuming, and we are > overcrowded from time to time when there is rush. I doubt maintainers > are ignoring your patches, as most of them try to do their best. > You might help them by reviewing patches for them, so they have time > to process your series. Yes, I am aware of these. And once I got used to a new code base tree I also look at other ones' patches there. I've recently been thinking whether it would be possible for QEMU submaintainers to make use of patchwork's status feature: https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg737917.html Maybe that could help preventing patches of high traffic components ending up unseen. Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck