On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:28 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 08:21:34AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:14 AM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 3/8/21 1:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:55:10PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > >> On 08/03/2021 12.16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > >>> Hi Peter, > > > >>> > > > >>> +Markus/Paolo/Laurent/Richard > > > >>> > > > >>> On 3/8/21 11:24 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > >>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 10:09, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 07/03/2021 16.56, Warner Losh wrote: > > > >>>>>> The FreeBSD project has a number of enhancements to bsd-user. > Add > > > myself > > > >>>>>> as maintainer and Kyle Evans as a reviewer. Also add our github > > > repo. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> > > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> > > > >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > > > >>>>>> --- > > > >>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 5 ++++- > > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > >>>>>> index 26c9454823..ec0e935038 100644 > > > >>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > >>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > >>>>>> @@ -2896,9 +2896,12 @@ F: thunk.c > > > >>>>>> F: accel/tcg/user-exec*.c > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> BSD user > > > >>>>>> -S: Orphan > > > >>>>>> +M: Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> > > > >>>>>> +R: Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> > > > >>>>>> +S: Maintained > > > >>>>>> F: bsd-user/ > > > >>>>>> F: default-configs/targets/*-bsd-user.mak > > > >>>>>> +T: git https://github.com/qemu-bsd-user/qemu-bsd-user > > > bsd-user-rebase-3.1 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> BSD is not really my home turf, but since nobody else picked > this up > > > and I > > > >>>>> plan to send a pull request for a bunch of patches anyway this > week, > > > I can > > > >>>>> also put it into my queue. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Fine with me. (The v1 was in my to-review queue, but I'm currently > > > >>>> running somewhat behind on processing patches.) > > > >>> > > > >>> This is a patch for mainstream QEMU, I'm having hard time > > > >>> understanding the point of it. This is some official way > > > >>> to say that BSD-user is not maintained in mainstream but > > > >>> has to be used in the referred fork which is way different > > > >>> that mainstream... > > > >>> > > > >>> I'd rather wait for more mainstream contributions from Warner > > > >>> and Kyle, or blow the current orphan/dead code and import > > > >>> bsd-user-rebase-3.1 adding the maintainer entries along, but > > > >>> certainly not mark this dead code as maintained. > > > >>> > > > >>> Please convince me why I'm wrong, because I'd prefer NAck this > > > >>> patch... > > > >> > > > >> The idea has been discussed here: > > > >> > > > >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-01/msg01399.html > > > >> > > > >> So this is not about declaring that bsd-user is maintained in a > > > different > > > >> repository, but about giving Warner et al. a chance to finally > upstream > > > >> their work. > > > > > > > > Yep, I think this change in MAINTAINERS file is primarily about > > > signalling > > > > intent for future > > > > > > > Yes. Just so. We have the older fork that we're trying to port forward. > If > > people have changes as we do that, it sure would be nice to have them go > > through us rather than create more conflict with the main tree. I don't > > need to have a new set of conflicts with main because someone thought > that > > it would be a good idea to move the space before or after the '(' or > after > > in a bunch of files. It's just extra work if I have to do it as part of > the > > merging. Better that goes into the top of our queue so it's managed and > > easy and a click on github than another half hour I have to spend sorting > > that out when I'd rather be sorting out the substantial change that go on > > upstream in other areas that legitimately do make things much better. > > > > We talked about all this in the above thread, I thought, and I thought it > > was all settled, so I was rather surprised to wake up to this thread this > > morning. > > From my POV, nothing has changed - I think the MAINTAINERS change is > reasonable. > > > > > > Marking the subsystem as maintained isn't saying the current code is > > > great, > > > > just that there is someone committed to improving it hereafter. > > > > > > OK, thank Thomas / Daniel for explaining and referring to the "BSD-user > > > plans" (which I didn't notice earlier). > > > > > > Warner, what about mentioning your plans here in this patch? > > > > > > > Where is there room in the MAINTAINERS file for that? How would you like > me > > to do that? > > I think he was just referring to mentioning the intention in the > commit message. The MAINTAINERS file isn't a suitable place for > describing plans. > Ah, that makes sense... I can do that and resend. > > > > If we want to warn people that the current impl isn't great, that's > goes > > > > back to the topic of having a way to classify QEMU features into > quality > > > > levels Tier 1/2/3. > > > > > > That indeed sounds good w.r.t. contributors / users expectations. > > > > > > I suppose 1=hw_accel/security, 2=tested, 3=rest? > > > > > > Not a single clue how to do that although. > > > > > > > Yup. Why invent something new just to make it harder for me to get things > > into the tree? There's already the tiered maintainer stuff, and I'm > trying > > to get our stuff that turn the current bsd-user that's crap into > something > > that's quite solid. > > > ...snip... > > You don't have to worry about this - it is tangential to your patch > here - a problem facing QEMU as a whole, not BSD specific, and there's > no immediate answer here either. > Gotcha. I wasn't sure if there was something else I needed to do here or not. Warner
