Re: i915 and GTV-g maintenance, workflows and CI

Zhenyu Wang
2016-10-20T09:46:59Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5510 bytes --]

On 2016.10.20 11:24:21 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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.
>

Normally GVT-g shouldn't impact drm-intel CI. I do like to setup GVT-g specific
CI with fancy multiple VMs auto test available. But it might need some time
for QA team to setup that way.

> 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.
>

We're working with 01.org admin to fix that ASAP. I didn't realize
01.org list has such issue, just thought we have aligned user/dev
igvt-g list on same place, otherwise I'd have considered other way..
But yes, we will still include intel-gfx list in maintainer file and
keep eye on it.

> > * 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.

Agreed.

>
> > * 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.
>

yeah, I think we should follow that way.

> > * 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.

fixing...

>
> > +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.

Next big merge will be integration work with VFIO/mdev framework. Both VFIO/mdev
and our GVT-g device model work are for 4.10. Currently we already have working
patch sets internally based on newest VFIO/mdev v9 series. We'd like to put
a topic branch this week to be reviewed by VFIO community to make sure everything
work as designed.

I think a TODO file might help us to track left issues, will consider that.

>
> > * 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.

yeah, that's also in our plan, will create new category for GVT-g driver.
Our QA team will handle that.

>
> > What did I forget/overlook?
>
> Nothing else crosses my mind, but I'm sure we'll discover more ;-)

Thanks to summarize this! Really help to clarify for other people.

--
Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd.

$gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]