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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0B5C433E2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FFC223EA for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="OQbkQFhl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726896AbgIPRVi (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:21:38 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:31936 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726682AbgIPRV1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:21:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1600276864; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HzLLHZVSV72vvlADhNXOViL8Ty89JaFD8mYPv4rGjzc=; b=OQbkQFhlWSrnqtM/wD0/7BsMEOIqS0akns6av89DFSUoaQEsk6N8aka511cE45GfH2RKyX p5lLneM41T2VJXFLAHpWtV4hzIcLVTAE+RYTxWblZg6ACmNHQwYGhYeArPIzuawdm84Lc+ N11qbCfsbu3lerris6zV4EPRyLrcYwk= Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-398-nBve9nL7MZC9sUtYln6i1Q-1; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:07:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nBve9nL7MZC9sUtYln6i1Q-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id a14so6228138qtp.15 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=HzLLHZVSV72vvlADhNXOViL8Ty89JaFD8mYPv4rGjzc=; b=qUhA1RWtTMYdXKvg5Tb3D0Z4THp3Ztlo1ScTGYeW7yXzEiMU6e4xWs6WLszCBNltLZ 8GGI3TEqrL7BZIRbLzWST+fCFUoSpF75xab3fl6ljg5I76e9T2YUcnYokhm5lJSCmug9 cPy+u//MynzWedc6QU+NWX1RxmJsCX3RGMELCNButnJU8ztGmjgzNmo0XZ41Ays7mWPK etlX/JLVhGkSt6zCzAaGNgh5Z/2/OnISwAp/OB4/hwY69/n/a+si9do1faYlEZJvXdB2 QDM3fijJpedR51B9cq/iycbVg0/HDnMoPnsYRnaS1ct597NTUF0epGiB0PtAWY9iqpUx SXPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xpPalv2CSQnVih23FBGNW+Cm9MmcIL3AIxaWyu9R/XW4DW4Qq el2qjy0roPW5UBFi6DdiD8CteCAAnxcopXUTLGw0GFPhNAQ+7T5xTIvaVfujvWasbK9NZd4/wvG GBPwSEL4jyt+I8UOREu2V7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d6b:: with SMTP id 11mr23678203qvs.30.1600268865068; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWN21X4CZRf9yrgu+X9BdFXtX9aNaENXZ2/bUqmRnZusfMO04Dp9KE9mH9QVWJlW4GBay9Ew== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d6b:: with SMTP id 11mr23678157qvs.30.1600268864680; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trix.remote.csb (075-142-250-213.res.spectrum.com. [75.142.250.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i5sm19573735qko.86.2020.09.16.08.07.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: RFC improving amount of content in 5.11 To: Moritz Fischer Cc: Wu Hao , "linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org" References: <3295710c-5e82-7b97-43de-99b9870a8c8c@redhat.com> <20200914211012.GA22855@archbook> <0e51e17e-691f-04ef-699a-e0816c216375@redhat.com> <20200915213324.GA29697@epycbox.lan> From: Tom Rix Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:07:42 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200915213324.GA29697@epycbox.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-fpga-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org On 9/15/20 2:33 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: > Tom, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:58:52PM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > >> A non trival change takes 8 revisions, with about 1 week per revision. > I don't consider that to be out of the norm, especially if you want > multiple people to give feedback on a changeset. This is a result of the > distributed nature of people working across several timezones. > > I generally prefer to go a bit slower and get it right rather than > having to redo or realize we got the interfaces wrong -- some of which > have to stay stable. > >> Gives us 1 or 2 changes per release. >> >> In the easy case, a new card is in the same family, will have 4 new ip blocks >> >> and a change to glue it all together change, 5 patch sets. > So far I haven't seen that happen that many times. > >> So we can handle 1 or 2 cards year. > Again I haven't seen more than that in the past. >> But if we can cut the review down to 2 weeks, we could do maybe 5-10 cards per year. >> >> >> Then the downside if we do not keep up. >> >> every card has a custom out of tree driver available on a limited set of distros. >> >> which i believe is the current state of things. > Tbh, this is easy to fix as vendor by just submitting the code earlier > and in smaller chunks. People can send out RFCs early and then we can > discuss designs and not just show up with 20+ patch series and expect them > to be merged as is (ideally within 2-3 revisions) even more so if they > span several subsystems. > > The kernel never has cared about corporate timelines, and as vendor if > you care about timely hardware support (and want to avoid out-of-tree > nightmares) start early with your upstreaming efforts. That has always > been the case. > >>>> So I was wondering what we can do generally and i can do specifically >>>> to improve this. >>>> >>>> My comment >>>> Though we are a low volume list, anything non trivial takes about 8 revisions. >>>> My suggestion is that we all try to give the developer our big first >>>> pass review within a week of the patch landing and try to cut the >>>> revisions down to 3. >>> It's unfortunate that it takes so long to get things moving, I agree, >>> but with everything that's going on - bear in mind people deal different >>> with situations like the present - it is what it is. >>> >>> My current dayjob doesn't pay me for working on this so the time I dedicate >>> to this comes out of my spare time and weekends - Personally I'd rather >>> not burn out and keep functioning in the long run. >> I understand, in the past i have worked as a maintainer when it was not my day job, it's hard. >> >> I am fortunate, fpga kernel and userspace is my day job.  Over the last couple of months, i have been >> >> consistently spending a couple hours a day fixing random kernel problems as well as getting linux-fpga >> >> reviews out within a day or two so i know i have the bandwidth to devote. >> >> >> So I am asking what else can I do ? >> >> Would helping out with staging the PR's be help ? > As you pointed out above, the bottleneck is review velocity, I don't > know what staging PRs helps with that. > >> Could i move up to a maintainer ? > The problem is I'd still like to review the patches that go into my > subsystem. I appreciate your help with the reviews, and it's been > helpful so far. I don't think having an addtional maintainer will help > with that at this point. We agree slow reviews are throttling the content in the releases. Is this a temporary situation with your work or is it steady state? Are slow reviews the only problem ? Which is getting back to my original RFC on how can we improve the amount of content in the releases ? Tom > > - Moritz >