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=-8.3 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 A9F21C43461 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56BFD206B5 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="HCNZFaVl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728100AbgIQPrp (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:47:45 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:46534 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728127AbgIQPrU (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:47:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1600357584; 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=N9KOqf2leCM1HCqS8l6PF3xaF+XgXaQ2ZP6YRd6k2IA=; b=HCNZFaVl03utX1sgvmktQRf2yTyWTUHnP6+Yb19Dz8cBB+aJt3zQzCoXgWm6RjDtg1ydkP ayLce3QcYDIlGy+X9d7nEdJnpzLhNJIlP2cMCrqqG/mkbowLDo3u9Mvh7DG9qzjGJvcv2l bbhX40IIkcy7jwoJBtgdNN8EJzowWB4= Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-515-09gFBss9NVqIY9P4zKZKjw-1; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:38:11 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 09gFBss9NVqIY9P4zKZKjw-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id 125so1849958qkh.4 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:38:11 -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=N9KOqf2leCM1HCqS8l6PF3xaF+XgXaQ2ZP6YRd6k2IA=; b=XYMyuNlUfDLkB3ZfuLUB5s34J6byCCa5oa9obH16mrsw6Wnw+XEpZ/ewrLr5D9mgHu 7SNUsxsYwuCUCzHcGPPCDp6gUJr5TumaHKfZfO/abcQce6gtjmMboAW2vd4hB30uvv/J 5DRsd+tuUMhnHK72LEWPLiMxA/9r1f5ixhyUXH2tN4huy50JlW2trdR3Bixqk5uJ5CGr sqfp0jLIHHYZHn0wWWsc+YMZ3MOlOmtrmS8kDzjfM9KXf1kReOmjR1MvPq53s46uV9K0 MOQE1sbuCaE/E1p7C+mz+k/VIkCoknHpsjPbaIboZFW1YYa39Wa0Cu//k4SmZdvM086Y jduQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533sKALYA0n0/7H4sFNXfW1Olre8Xzg+8WqvioqLm/tIYpSkz3ur MMiUdcU0zCPxK/bJ08pOtAY+BxhFh2ihB2Jff6JInv2ZGwGM2oR21EfxO7i1LKaX70S9Ep4SEMG kpGJDrWSwzjLDrfpkc2mfAw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:157:: with SMTP id f23mr28290445qtg.273.1600357090651; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwotuvBxjhgnWmAskssE8RgDYDiVqT80zp07DmTyUgIxGNyhJebGvW2W/z0r3TL5PijsxnTLA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:157:: with SMTP id f23mr28290407qtg.273.1600357090251; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:38:10 -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 z26sm72289qkj.107.2020.09.17.08.38.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:38:09 -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> <20200917060150.GA1084338@epycbox.lan> From: Tom Rix Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:38:07 -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: <20200917060150.GA1084338@epycbox.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org On 9/16/20 11:01 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: > Tom, > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:07:42AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: >> 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? > Tbh, I don't appreciate the tone you're taking with your emails: > > Starting a conversation with how disappointed you are is generally not a > great way to get people on board with anything. > > I'll let you know when I need help beyond the reviews, as I already told > you earlier in the replies to your off-list emails. > > I am not generally opposed to the idea of bringing on new maintainers -- > Hao has done a great job for the DFL code so far -- but as of now I do > not see an immediate benefit (or need) in terms of process to adding more > FPGA maintainers. > >> Are slow reviews the only problem ? > Since the FPGA pull requests go through Greg's tree they need to be sent > out earlier than a pull request to Linus, if you send out a patchset > around rc4 don't expect it to go in in that release if it requires a > non-trivial amount of review -- if you have patches just send them. > >> Which is getting back to my original RFC on how can we improve the amount of content in the releases ? > Send patches earlier (ideally start with an RFC if you intend larger > changes) and in smaller batches, which will save you time later in the > process. I am sorry, this is difficult i just did not know where to start, i know this is stressful. My ask for more content is the first step in a bigger ask. My expectation is that developers should be able to develop first in the kernel. This a win for everyone, it supports the your call for small changes and rfc's, kills off oot drivers etc. Having reviewed xilinx and intel dev repos I know we are far far from this. Thanks for bearing with me, Tom > > - Moritz >