From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F634C02198 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96E110E365; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b="Zcqd7Muw"; dkim-atps=neutral X-Greylist: delayed 930 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at gabe; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:05:37 UTC Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [62.89.141.173]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D12B110E365 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:05:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.org.uk; s=zeniv-20220401; h=Sender:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=9Lwc6ovB+AAsRpWlUng0A8U3oiN7oiWCRl5T7bGuQNY=; b=Zcqd7MuwSp32VjaIeQh5yxL/U6 icJVq5xrEpspT/pKRtBxR7iEunSEhjiVPPCrSRqP10coccrZkG5YUNLZmffQUiZerd62tVgb3HLd2 znI7Mzv5bo8NbC2ixCTPRCHTPSIxIK/qj0liS+a+JNXUMioYlPFlpUy/M6odXJ3kAQEu64fX1f5Zd GS2kofNlks6aKd+u5V97NzagKHrx+L7QSFNQZknXhh5XlHN1XPfQu/dabOW61EwnIiLCVvJ8/pNN5 u2lhMrSUoiJwwDKXBqkbYIUTZzE7XUajvFlJn2A4WyYCFLOESb5GpPpLsZDFsPbdiRaD6pipLDOJk JM61i51g==; Received: from viro by zeniv.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tj1h3-0000000E68X-33mp; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:49:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:49:45 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Neal Gompa Cc: Mark Brown , Hector Martin , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Danilo Krummrich , Dave Airlie , Jason Gunthorpe , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , phasta@kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Miguel Ojeda , Abdiel Janulgue , daniel.almeida@collabora.com, aliceryhl@google.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda , Alex Gaynor , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Trevor Gross , Valentin Obst , open list , Marek Szyprowski , David Airlie , "open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" , DRI Development Subject: Re: On community influencing (was Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.) Message-ID: <20250214194945.GE1977892@ZenIV> References: <2025013148-reversal-pessimism-1515@gregkh> <1bbdf8b7-a70b-4994-865e-7fcb8d53ebef@marcan.st> <20250207-prehistoric-married-dormouse-3e1aa7@lemur> <7742420.9J7NaK4W3v@skuld-framework> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:10:57AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:28 PM Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 03:25:26AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Friday, February 7, 2025 1:16:11 PM Eastern Standard Time Konstantin > > > Ryabitsev wrote: > > > > > > It is my goal to be able to give subsystems a way to use forges without it > > > > impacting how they interact with upstream or handle tree-wide changes. That > > > > is, once I'm done moving things from one Benevolent Company to another. > > > > > Honestly, this is probably not possible. If a subsystem moves to a forge > > > workflow, it pretty much means tree-wide changes need to work partially that > > > way too. > > > > We do actually have some people using forges already, for example the > > SOF people do a bunch of their review on github and then turn that into > > patch serieses which they send via the normal email route when they're > > happy with them. I think tree wide stuff flows in via back merges or > > rebases, one of the benefits of delegation is that it's not my problem. > > This all works perfectly well from my side, as far as I know it's fine > > for the SOF people too. It certainly doesn't seem insurmountable. > > It might be working as long as a subsystem continues to allow > receiving patches via email. As soon as a subsystem decides to stop > doing that (which is absolutely their right given the model of > subsystem maintenance that the Linux project has), I think this will > break down very quickly. > > I wonder which team will be the first one to do it. It's not a > question of if, but when. Then it will be a matter of patches affecting their subtree getting merged through the mainline. All there is to it...