From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: "Nikkanen, Kimmo" <kimmo.nikkanen@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, "Xu,
Terrence" <terrence.xu@intel.com>,
igvt-g-dev@lists.01.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
"Lv, Zhiyuan" <zhiyuan.lv@intel.com>
Subject: Re: i915 and GTV-g maintenance, workflows and CI
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:24:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161020092421.GR20761@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874m47s88x.fsf@intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> We need to formalize the process between i915 proper and GVT-g a bit
> more, and address some of the current shortcomings and issues in the
> process and GVT-g CI.
>
> This started off internally as a random list of items, I'm including
> some of the current status as well. Please comment, as some of the stuff
> here are just my opinions.
>
> * How do we ensure GVT-g patches get the same kind of pre-merge CI
> coverage as we have for other i915 code? Could we at least make CI run
> tests on GVT-g pull requests before merging to drm-intel trees?
>
> => Work in progress to set up GVT-g CI.
Personally I don't think gvt needs to pass drm-intel CI. If GVT folks want
to do that then it's fine, but otherwise I'm leaning towards treating gvt
like a sub-driver, with its own flavour of testing and review standards.
Of course anything touching shared code (i.e. outside of the gvt/ subdir),
or code which can't be disabled with Kconfig needs to follow our
established review&testing procedures. So submission to intel-gfx, CI by
patchwork, review per our standards.
> * How do we handle fixes to GVT-g code? Do all fixes need to go via the
> GVT-g mailing lists and review? We're bound to get GVT-g patches on
> intel-gfx mailing list too. There's confusion already [1]. Mostly the
> GVT-g changes come from GVT-g maintainers as pull requests.
>
> [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/14000/
Atm the gvt mailing list is closed, and there's no maintainer entry for it
either. I think Zhenyu just needs to hang out here on intel-gfx to catch
these, and then pick any gvt/ fixes up himself.
> * GVT-g related changes to i915 proper must be reviewed on intel-gfx
> mailing list, and must either be applied to drm-intel directly, or get
> an ack to be merged via GVT-g tree and pull requests.
Ack.
> * GVT-g needs to start annotating fixes with the Fixes: tags, preferably
> also cc: stable when we get that far, so our fixes plumbing can figure
> out which commits to backport.
>
> => GVT-g maintainers will take care of this.
Either that, or they need to send -fixes pull requests your way. I think
we could try out either approach, but yes in the end gvt maintainers need
to own this. We (i915 team here) won't take care of that.
> * Should GVT-g have a MAINTAINERS entry of its own?
>
> => https://github.com/01org/gvt-linux/commit/41161c9e9e50a5bad98a0e74ad0878c352bdea40
>
> +INTEL GVT-g DRIVERS (Intel GPU Virtualization)
> +M: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
> +M: Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
> +L: igvt-g-dev@lists.01.org
Need to make sure igvt-g-dev is open to non-subscribers first. Otherwise
ack.
> +L: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> +W: https://01.org/igvt-g
> +T: git https://github.com/01org/gvt-linux.git
> +S: Supported
> +F: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/
>
> I think we'll want to keep intel-gfx there, but mostly I think it's
> fine for the usual GVT-g development to happen on igvt-g-dev only.
+1
> * igvt-g-dev@lists.01.org needs to start accepting mails from
> non-subscribers.
>
> => Work in progress.
Definitely ;-)
> * GVT-g needs to start paying more attention to compiler and sparse
> warnings.
>
> => GVT-G maintainers will take care of this.
>
> * GVT-g could use some overview documentation under Documentation/gpu.
Hm, should we have a TODO file in gvt for some of the issues raised? Otoh
most things are fairly small issues, so should all be fixable before 4.10
freeze.
> * GVT-g bug management. Do you have something set up already? Would be
> great to be able to use https://bugs.freedesktop.org so we could
> reassign between i915 and GVT-g.
+1.
> What did I forget/overlook?
Nothing else crosses my mind, but I'm sure we'll discover more ;-)
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-20 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-20 9:02 i915 and GTV-g maintenance, workflows and CI Jani Nikula
2016-10-20 9:24 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2016-10-20 9:42 ` Zhenyu Wang
2016-10-20 10:01 ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-20 10:34 ` Zhenyu Wang
2016-10-20 10:55 ` Jani Nikula
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161020092421.GR20761@phenom.ffwll.local \
--to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=igvt-g-dev@lists.01.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=kimmo.nikkanen@intel.com \
--cc=terrence.xu@intel.com \
--cc=zhiyuan.lv@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox