Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Fix hexagon-linux-user.mak path

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:

> On 20/5/26 15:09, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On 20/5/26 14:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> On 20/5/26 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 812b31d3f91 ("configs: rename default-configs to configs and reorganise")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>>> index b75f3222f2f..2a4d124fb3c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>>> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ X: target/hexagon/gen_idef_parser_funcs.py
>>>>>>    F: linux-user/hexagon/
>>>>>>    F: tests/tcg/hexagon/
>>>>>>    F: disas/hexagon.c
>>>>>> -F: configs/targets/hexagon-linux-user/default.mak
>>>>>> +F: configs/targets/hexagon-linux-user.mak
>>>>>>    F: docker/dockerfiles/debian-hexagon-cross.docker
>>>>>
>>>>> This one's wrong, too.
>>>> Already fixed in Alex's tree:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20260518102222.80735-2-philmd@linaro.org/
>>>> Pierrick suggested to repost patch dependencies already queued in
>>>> maintainer tree when posting series; while this seem counter
>>>> productive it could indeed have saved us time.
>>>>
>>>>> I have an unsent patch fixing both.  In fact, I have an unsent series
>>>>> fixing *all* F: patterns that don't resolve to any file.
>>>
>>> I looked for your series without success, then realized you mentioned
>>> it is "unsent". This patch is still valid then.
>>
>> Yes.
>> 
>>>                                                  Why mention unsent work?
>> To avoid duplicated work.
>
> I'm not sure this thread is making sense o_O

Are we talking past each other?

> Let's try to figure what you meant here. I'm not racing to get
> this patch in nor enjoying duplicating work, but this is the
> mailing list rules (due to the intrinsic email workflow latency,
> not to mention subscriber processing their INBOX in FIFO mode).

Let me recap the obvious :)

1. First workable patch on the list has priority, with a generous
interpretation of "workable".

2. If a workable patch on the list overlaps with one I haven't sent, I
rebase mine onto it.  No arguing, no whining.

In fact, I did exactly that, and then told you: "I've been picking [your
patches] into my tree".  When my patches are ready, I intend to post
them with a bunch of Based-on: pointing to yours, or include yours with
mine, whatever feels more convenient.

Okay?

> See for example last week at least 3 developers fixed the same
> GCC warning issue. Generically, how could we improve that?

I don't have better ideas than "watch the mailing list", and "let the
right people know what you're doing".

>>>> Oh :( I already sent various patches about that yesterday :(
>>
>> I've been picking them into my tree as I went.  I may have missed the
>> odd patch, but I'll fix that.
>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>>    F: gdbstub/gdb-xml/hexagon*.xml
>>>>>>    T: git https://github.com/quic/qemu.git hex-next
>>