From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] ASoC: SOF: improvements for ABI checks and Intel code Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 09:59:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20190430230934.4321-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20190503054047.GB14916@sirena.org.uk> <6ac56436-5ce1-d977-45ef-f305f77bfe01@linux.intel.com> <20190506035133.GI14916@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4BB6F80C07 for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 16:59:27 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20190506035133.GI14916@sirena.org.uk> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" To: Mark Brown Cc: tiwai@suse.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 5/5/19 10:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 09:47:39AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >> On 5/3/19 12:40 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> reviewer fatigue setting in with this stuff, one thing that'd really >>> help here is if there were some help from Intel people with review for >>> the DPCM code. > >> I can certainly understand reviewer fatigue, i've had to put a time limit on >> daily reviews to keep my sanity, but I don't get your last point. These >> patches were submitted and reviewed by Intel people on GitHub, what you see >> here is the result of multiple iterations precisely to make sure the patches >> are acceptable for upstream. we've set the goal of having two Intel aprovers >> for each patch. Can you elaborate on how we can make your life simpler? > > The last point there is that Intel only write patches, nobody from Intel > is reviewing other people's patches especially in areas of the code like > DPCM which are complex, fragile and where Intel is by far the most > active user. It's a valid point, and for now we indeed only check for non-regressions and provide point solutions without looking at the bigger picture. We have a couple of people ramping up (Ranjani, Libin, Guennadi, Jaska) and hopefully at some point we'll be able to review and improve.