Re: Re: [PATCH] Xen watchdog driver

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

 On 10/04/2010 02:15 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> I think we all need to start trying to move from the mindset that
> xen.git is the only target of our development efforts and instead work
> much more directly/closely with Linux upstream, in particular with
> subsystem maintainers of other areas touched by our patches.
>
> Many Xen patches differ from the norm in that they are cross-subsystem
> (e.g. they implement Xen functionality in the context of some other
> subsystem such as networking, block, watchdog subsystems) rather than
> being obviously single subsystem with the more normal linear progression
> through driver maintainer to subsystem maintainers to Linus etc.
>
> I think it should be the responsibility of the patch contributor to get
> review and thence an Acked-by from both/all subsystem maintainers (IOW
> both Jeremy and the other subsystem's maintainers), regardless of which
> tree the patch eventually gets committed to.
>
> For cases where there is no impediment to sending stuff directly
> upstream pushing stuff only towards xen.git works against the goal of
> having first class Xen support in the upstream kernel. Even in cases
> where a patch depends on something which is currently only in xen.git I
> think taking it to the relevant subsystem and getting an
> in-principle-Acked-by makes sense in many cases and will help with the
> eventual upstreaming. 
>
> I could even go so far as to argue that in many cases (especially for
> domU stuff) the primary subsystem of interest for a patch is not Xen but
> the other one and that only core Xen stuff really needs to go through
> xen.git. In other words in most cases the main target of upstreaming
> should be the maintainer of the relevant other subsystem, of course with
> Jeremy's and/or other Xen community members' Reviewed/Acked/Tested-by.
>
> This sort of model has already worked well for Stefano's pvhvm drivers
> and is looking good for Konrad's swiotlb/pcifront stuff too. Although
> the above is really intended as a more general comment on our
> development practices I do think a watchdog driver is another good
> example of a patch which could go via the watchdog subsystem maintainer
> rather than xen.git.

Yes, exactly so.

    J