From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB5014D29B for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2025 11:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757591092; cv=none; b=bQGOzIuHLLAPN8xOsRobuTD7cZtpZYnGWBx2m2lOKO66IV+rsTBpb8Q+iUsVG2DMdM6bkK7VL15yDA98S/rWyyhv8kuWeX5ASOxf/9Bouzmwwtl0zVbNX6swLNngkYL7qHiXhjHbmpNvao0DI98GpNqmxyAKTrECyEJt02PooPw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757591092; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KAcxUIYchjR6axrf42saWRZaf3XKAB+5cF4poF5dQJI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jVTaldsjDEE6DeX1kZsd1fknmq+phPNUorgrDL641u4ZSvHhGtmaA75hSm4V//MZdgf9RS4Pq/DeWnVnvlb9hy3tjZLCoY7kpalhYbyw4KxzyoQ2XafwjDbyppiGyQGTc1WPzJSq6iBsDoeq0gWvIML3ktGZIJt3TeUmVrgdJgo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VUbDhHRT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VUbDhHRT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C098BC4CEF0; Thu, 11 Sep 2025 11:44:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1757591092; bh=KAcxUIYchjR6axrf42saWRZaf3XKAB+5cF4poF5dQJI=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VUbDhHRTtbevY7D0YVmlsaxGHWeJ4VCi5ZfC9C9R9rTt1RN5ZiY34rsRy9v4FpEGg i6WVYbxQmGQxEHuw3GQulYTq1/hxWCQD7D1JEj/YM897CnHLfxs2mZ8hNSDi5eWF71 PQvszDUkAGWFByBVNE6+uc/QK33znjeO8/3qf3juhw+/V1HUp/bQ+IaGFbvIeD7CYY NhcQ9jN0BvDK3OKjmdVPmdWMFYC+1DaNarxNgAE3+V4NGrRqDkr+wus0wZwr3UmkVK blIsXW2b51a+jiv4CmAVYUnyuEnn8wRGfK1ljYKHTI+U4x9g4X/PO1p1yVXjWh7I4z N3QdPgpfom9tA== Message-ID: <6595f6c7-ebdd-4aed-9540-7e50d5afc87e@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 13:44:49 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Hidden commits from next (aka why maintainers hoard them in backpack) From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: ksummit@lists.linux.dev References: <299e6601-a83e-4e5d-9dd9-12ae796cd913@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US Autocrypt: addr=krzk@kernel.org; keydata= xsFNBFVDQq4BEAC6KeLOfFsAvFMBsrCrJ2bCalhPv5+KQF2PS2+iwZI8BpRZoV+Bd5kWvN79 cFgcqTTuNHjAvxtUG8pQgGTHAObYs6xeYJtjUH0ZX6ndJ33FJYf5V3yXqqjcZ30FgHzJCFUu JMp7PSyMPzpUXfU12yfcRYVEMQrmplNZssmYhiTeVicuOOypWugZKVLGNm0IweVCaZ/DJDIH gNbpvVwjcKYrx85m9cBVEBUGaQP6AT7qlVCkrf50v8bofSIyVa2xmubbAwwFA1oxoOusjPIE J3iadrwpFvsZjF5uHAKS+7wHLoW9hVzOnLbX6ajk5Hf8Pb1m+VH/E8bPBNNYKkfTtypTDUCj NYcd27tjnXfG+SDs/EXNUAIRefCyvaRG7oRYF3Ec+2RgQDRnmmjCjoQNbFrJvJkFHlPeHaeS BosGY+XWKydnmsfY7SSnjAzLUGAFhLd/XDVpb1Een2XucPpKvt9ORF+48gy12FA5GduRLhQU vK4tU7ojoem/G23PcowM1CwPurC8sAVsQb9KmwTGh7rVz3ks3w/zfGBy3+WmLg++C2Wct6nM Pd8/6CBVjEWqD06/RjI2AnjIq5fSEH/BIfXXfC68nMp9BZoy3So4ZsbOlBmtAPvMYX6U8VwD TNeBxJu5Ex0Izf1NV9CzC3nNaFUYOY8KfN01X5SExAoVTr09ewARAQABzSVLcnp5c3p0b2Yg S296bG93c2tpIDxrcnprQGtlcm5lbC5vcmc+wsGVBBMBCgA/AhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsE FgIDAQIeAQIXgBYhBJvQfg4MUfjVlne3VBuTQ307QWKbBQJoF1BKBQkWlnSaAAoJEBuTQ307 QWKbHukP/3t4tRp/bvDnxJfmNdNVn0gv9ep3L39IntPalBFwRKytqeQkzAju0whYWg+R/rwp +r2I1Fzwt7+PTjsnMFlh1AZxGDmP5MFkzVsMnfX1lGiXhYSOMP97XL6R1QSXxaWOpGNCDaUl ajorB0lJDcC0q3xAdwzRConxYVhlgmTrRiD8oLlSCD5baEAt5Zw17UTNDnDGmZQKR0fqLpWy 786Lm5OScb7DjEgcA2PRm17st4UQ1kF0rQHokVaotxRM74PPDB8bCsunlghJl1DRK9s1aSuN hL1Pv9VD8b4dFNvCo7b4hfAANPU67W40AaaGZ3UAfmw+1MYyo4QuAZGKzaP2ukbdCD/DYnqi tJy88XqWtyb4UQWKNoQqGKzlYXdKsldYqrLHGoMvj1UN9XcRtXHST/IaLn72o7j7/h/Ac5EL 8lSUVIG4TYn59NyxxAXa07Wi6zjVL1U11fTnFmE29ALYQEXKBI3KUO1A3p4sQWzU7uRmbuxn naUmm8RbpMcOfa9JjlXCLmQ5IP7Rr5tYZUCkZz08LIfF8UMXwH7OOEX87Y++EkAB+pzKZNNd hwoXulTAgjSy+OiaLtuCys9VdXLZ3Zy314azaCU3BoWgaMV0eAW/+gprWMXQM1lrlzvwlD/k whyy9wGf0AEPpLssLVt9VVxNjo6BIkt6d1pMg6mHsUEVzsFNBFVDXDQBEADNkrQYSREUL4D3 Gws46JEoZ9HEQOKtkrwjrzlw/tCmqVzERRPvz2Xg8n7+HRCrgqnodIYoUh5WsU84N03KlLue MNsWLJBvBaubYN4JuJIdRr4dS4oyF1/fQAQPHh8Thpiz0SAZFx6iWKB7Qrz3OrGCjTPcW6ei OMheesVS5hxietSmlin+SilmIAPZHx7n242u6kdHOh+/SyLImKn/dh9RzatVpUKbv34eP1wA GldWsRxbf3WP9pFNObSzI/Bo3kA89Xx2rO2roC+Gq4LeHvo7ptzcLcrqaHUAcZ3CgFG88CnA 6z6lBZn0WyewEcPOPdcUB2Q7D/NiUY+HDiV99rAYPJztjeTrBSTnHeSBPb+qn5ZZGQwIdUW9 YegxWKvXXHTwB5eMzo/RB6vffwqcnHDoe0q7VgzRRZJwpi6aMIXLfeWZ5Wrwaw2zldFuO4Dt 91pFzBSOIpeMtfgb/Pfe/a1WJ/GgaIRIBE+NUqckM+3zJHGmVPqJP/h2Iwv6nw8U+7Yyl6gU BLHFTg2hYnLFJI4Xjg+AX1hHFVKmvl3VBHIsBv0oDcsQWXqY+NaFahT0lRPjYtrTa1v3tem/ JoFzZ4B0p27K+qQCF2R96hVvuEyjzBmdq2esyE6zIqftdo4MOJho8uctOiWbwNNq2U9pPWmu 4vXVFBYIGmpyNPYzRm0QPwARAQABwsF8BBgBCgAmAhsMFiEEm9B+DgxR+NWWd7dUG5NDfTtB YpsFAmgXUF8FCRaWWyoACgkQG5NDfTtBYptO0w//dlXJs5/42hAXKsk+PDg3wyEFb4NpyA1v qmx7SfAzk9Hf6lWwU1O6AbqNMbh6PjEwadKUk1m04S7EjdQLsj/MBSgoQtCT3MDmWUUtHZd5 RYIPnPq3WVB47GtuO6/u375tsxhtf7vt95QSYJwCB+ZUgo4T+FV4hquZ4AsRkbgavtIzQisg Dgv76tnEv3YHV8Jn9mi/Bu0FURF+5kpdMfgo1sq6RXNQ//TVf8yFgRtTUdXxW/qHjlYURrm2 H4kutobVEIxiyu6m05q3e9eZB/TaMMNVORx+1kM3j7f0rwtEYUFzY1ygQfpcMDPl7pRYoJjB dSsm0ZuzDaCwaxg2t8hqQJBzJCezTOIkjHUsWAK+tEbU4Z4SnNpCyM3fBqsgYdJxjyC/tWVT AQ18NRLtPw7tK1rdcwCl0GFQHwSwk5pDpz1NH40e6lU+NcXSeiqkDDRkHlftKPV/dV+lQXiu jWt87ecuHlpL3uuQ0ZZNWqHgZoQLXoqC2ZV5KrtKWb/jyiFX/sxSrodALf0zf+tfHv0FZWT2 zHjUqd0t4njD/UOsuIMOQn4Ig0SdivYPfZukb5cdasKJukG1NOpbW7yRNivaCnfZz6dTawXw XRIV/KDsHQiyVxKvN73bThKhONkcX2LWuD928tAR6XMM2G5ovxLe09vuOzzfTWQDsm++9UKF a/A= In-Reply-To: <299e6601-a83e-4e5d-9dd9-12ae796cd913@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/09/2025 13:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Hi, > > > I have noticed at least a few cases where sub-maintainers collect > patches, but their trees are not included linux-next. Or their patches > are not fed to linux-next. > > I don’t see a good reason to keep valid, proper patches - collected by > trusted sub-maintainers and intended for upstream submission - out of > linux-next. If a sub-maintainer is trusted in collecting patches and > sending them to the upstream maintainer, these commits should be visible > in the linux-next. > > I have occasionally asked sub-maintainers to add their trees to the > linux-next, and sometimes this worked. In other cases it could not work > for various reasons, e.g. workflow of the upstream maintainer or > reluctance to share commits early. These reasons are what I would like > to discuss and, hopefully, improve. > > > Why is that a problem? > ====================== > Patch was reviewed on the list day X and applied by the sub-maintainer. > Then for two, three or four weeks, this patch is not being in the > linux-next means: > 1. Limited or no build bot coverage. > > 2. No actual integration testing, even if it is just spotting early > merge conflicts. > > 3. No wide community testing. > > 4. Contributors cannot base their patchsets on linux-next for > convenience, but need to find each sub-maintainer tree and pull it. For > few cases (see further) these sub-maintainer trees are not documented in > MAINTAINERS, so it is impossible for contributor to rebase on current > maintainer's tree! > > > > Identifying the patches > ======================= > There are two cases here for patches committed by sub-maintainers, but > never fed to next: > 1. The upstream maintainer took them via pull request. > 2. The upstream maintainer rebased everything - changing commit date (to > add their own Signed-off-by? otherwise why would you rebase a pull > request from someone you trust?). > > > Short stats for case (1) - no rebasing > ====================================== > > I collected commits present in today's linux-next, but not present in > ~two weeks ago. These are the commits which appeared for broad testing > in the last two weeks. > > Then I dropped from above set all commits with commit date newer than > the next two weeks ago. > > This gives us set of commits: > 1. Which were committed some time ago, like a month ago, > 2. But they appeared in the linux-next only recently or were rebased. > 3. Then a manual look by subject (not automated yet) to be sure commit > was not rebased. > > Where were these commits? Why maintainers hoard them instead of > releasing to linux-next? > > Currently that is around: > git rev-list --before=2025-08-27 next-20250911 ^next-20250829 | wc -l > 133 > > `git show --no-patch --format=fuller` on above list > > And here is the example output of such commits still not in the > next-20250829: > > Author: John Harrison > AuthorDate: Fri Jun 13 20:02:22 2025 -0700 > Commit: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio > CommitDate: Thu Jul 3 14:05:10 2025 -0700 > > Author: Arnd Bergmann > AuthorDate: Thu Aug 7 09:21:28 2025 +0200 > Commit: Oliver Upton > CommitDate: Fri Aug 8 01:28:57 2025 -0700 > > commit 0c6b24d70da21201ed009a2aca740d2dfddc7ab5 > Author: Jason-JH Lin > AuthorDate: Mon Jul 28 10:48:50 2025 +0800 > Commit: Chun-Kuang Hu > CommitDate: Wed Aug 13 23:50:06 2025 +0000 > > > Short stats for case (2) - rebasing > =================================== > I don’t have statistics for these cases, because sub-maintainers’ trees > are not in linux-next, and the upstream maintainer changes the commit > date during rebasing. > > But such cases do exist (I dug them out, even though maintainer trees > are not listed in MAINTAINERS file but pull requests are on the lists): > > Author: Laurent Pinchart > AuthorDate: Thu Aug 8 22:41:02 2024 +0200 > Commit: Laurent Pinchart > CommitDate: Wed Aug 14 16:42:57 2024 +0300 > > Above commit is not in linux-next still, even though it was committed > month ago. 2024... D'oh! I looked at wrong tag, thus wrong year. This case is a bit trickier to investigate, especially if sub-maintainer rebases the tree and there is no thank-you letters on mailing list, but to illustrate that pattern in media: commit 0fb275a28933989ef599d92bf0cc2c99b750ca9b Author: Dikshita Agarwal AuthorDate: Mon Aug 25 12:30:26 2025 +0530 Commit: Bryan O'Donoghue CommitDate: Fri Sep 5 16:01:54 2025 +0100 and above commit appeared in next-20250911, so ~one week after being applied to sub-maintainer tree is not so bad. Best regards, Krzysztof