From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20CA5AA for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EDC8463 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:32:55 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: Joe Perches , James Bottomley , Julia Lawall In-Reply-To: <1508170057.6530.13.camel@perches.com> References: <20171005192002.hxbjjdjhrfa4oa37@thunk.org> <1507303665.3104.13.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1507567045.3100.16.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1507568189.3100.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <871sm9plfb.fsf@intel.com> <1508163175.7571.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <8760bfmaoz.fsf@intel.com> <1508170057.6530.13.camel@perches.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:34:23 +0300 Message-ID: <87lgkakwa8.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Maintainer's Summit Agenda Planning List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 17:25 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, James Bottomley wrote: >> > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 21:51 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2017, James Bottomley > > > ip.com> wrote: >> > > >=20 >> > > > On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 18:49 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > Do you suggest one big patch, that goes to who?=C2=A0=C2=A0Or lo= ts of >> > > > > little >> > > > > patches that go out at once to the individual maintainers of the >> > > > > affected code? >> > > >=20 >> > > > I was actually thinking we validate the script and if there are no >> > > > problems, apply it at -rc1 ... so effectively one big patch. >> > >=20 >> > > By -rc1 we (drm in general, drm/i915 in particular) will already have >> > > accumulated easily 4-5 weeks' worth of commits for the *next* merge >> > > window. Applying treewide stuff to Linus' tree at -rc1 forces a >> > > backmerge and potentially conflicts galore >> >=20 >> > If we're applying a semantic patch script (and we've verified it works >> > well enough to use the script on the -rc1 main tree), couldn't you >> > simply apply it to your tree at the same time? >>=20 >> If we did, the fixes would show up in a later kernel release. Which is >> just fine for us. In other words, just let subsystems and drivers handle >> this as they see fit? > > Scheduling and acceptance rates are the issue. > > Also some scripted patches require complete treewide > application to allow things like API changes. As described in https://lwn.net/Articles/735468/ we have a pretty extensive and growing CI system in place. We don't apply a single patch without a pre-merge green light from CI, no exceptions. I take issue with applying any patches to our driver that didn't go through our CI first, let alone bypassing our repositories. If an API change requires a flag day treewide change in a 15M+ line hierarchically developed codebase, you're just plain doing it wrong. Please just let subsystems and drivers handle this as they see fit, and queue changes via their trees. BR, Jani. --=20 Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center