Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Frank Schäfer]

Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork:
> Hello,
>
> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
...
>  * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers
>      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/
>     was: New
>     now: RFC

What's your plan with this patch ?
We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now.
Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution...

Frank

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:46:10 +0100
Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@googlemail.com> escreveu:

> Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
> ...
> >  * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers
> >      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/
> >     was: New
> >     now: RFC
> 
> What's your plan with this patch ?
> We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now.
> Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution...

Well, you tagged it as RFC. I just marked as such at patchwork. I don't even
read patches tagged as [RFC] or [REVIEW], as those patches will be
resubmitted later by the patch author, if they're ok, or a new version will
be sent instead.

-- 

Cheers,
Mauro

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Frank Schäfer]

Am 05.02.2013 23:08, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:46:10 +0100
> Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@googlemail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
>> ...
>>>  * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers
>>>      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/
>>>     was: New
>>>     now: RFC
>> What's your plan with this patch ?
>> We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now.
>> Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution...
> Well, you tagged it as RFC. I just marked as such at patchwork. I don't even
> read patches tagged as [RFC] or [REVIEW],

Uhm... even patches which are sent to you as the maintainer of the
_driver_ ?
Isn't commenting / reviewing patches the maintainers job ?


>  as those patches will be
> resubmitted later by the patch author, if they're ok, or a new version will
> be sent instead.

That's what I'm asking you. Is this patch ok / ready ?
Or can I generally conclude that patches are fine when there is no
reaction on them ?

Regards,
Frank

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:35:06 +0100
Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@googlemail.com> escreveu:

> Am 05.02.2013 23:08, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > Em Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:46:10 +0100
> > Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@googlemail.com> escreveu:
> >
> >> Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
> >> ...
> >>>  * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers
> >>>      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/
> >>>     was: New
> >>>     now: RFC
> >> What's your plan with this patch ?
> >> We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now.
> >> Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution...
> > Well, you tagged it as RFC. I just marked as such at patchwork. I don't even
> > read patches tagged as [RFC] or [REVIEW],
> 
> Uhm... even patches which are sent to you as the maintainer of the
> _driver_ ?
> Isn't commenting / reviewing patches the maintainers job ?
> 
> 
> >  as those patches will be
> > resubmitted later by the patch author, if they're ok, or a new version will
> > be sent instead.
> 
> That's what I'm asking you. Is this patch ok / ready ?
> Or can I generally conclude that patches are fine when there is no
> reaction on them ?

Frank,

As you may notice, my main "job" with regards to media stuff is to be
the media core maintainer. My work as a driver maintainer or as a
developer is forced to go to a second plane, as my time is limited.
So, I generally trust that driver developers are doing the right
thing.

ATM, I won't have anytime soon to test patches. So, if those patches 
require any test from me, they'll need to be postponed to 3.10, as I'm
finishing the handling of the patches for 3.9 today.

Also, from my side, there are simply too much patches sent to me, either
on my inbox (where I never read) and/or at linux-media ML. The last ones
I get from patchwork. Sometimes, even before picking the patches, I tag
everything with RFC or REVIEW on it as RFC. Then I handle the remaining
ones. This is to reduce the load to an acceptable work queue.

So, if you think that the USB patches are ok, just send it to the ML
without tagging it, and I'll analyze and apply if I believe that they're
ok. I'll eventually test the em28xx driver later, when I found some time.

If otherwise you think they may not be ready yet, the better to wait
for Devin to test, if it has some time, or send me a separate email asking
for me to test the patches.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Frank Schäfer]

Am 06.02.2013 16:58, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:35:06 +0100
> Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@googlemail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Am 05.02.2013 23:08, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>>> Em Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:46:10 +0100
>>> Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@googlemail.com> escreveu:
>>>
>>>> Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
>>>> ...
>>>>>  * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers
>>>>>      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/
>>>>>     was: New
>>>>>     now: RFC
>>>> What's your plan with this patch ?
>>>> We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now.
>>>> Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution...
>>> Well, you tagged it as RFC. I just marked as such at patchwork. I don't even
>>> read patches tagged as [RFC] or [REVIEW],
>> Uhm... even patches which are sent to you as the maintainer of the
>> _driver_ ?
>> Isn't commenting / reviewing patches the maintainers job ?
>>
>>
>>>  as those patches will be
>>> resubmitted later by the patch author, if they're ok, or a new version will
>>> be sent instead.
>> That's what I'm asking you. Is this patch ok / ready ?
>> Or can I generally conclude that patches are fine when there is no
>> reaction on them ?
> Frank,
>
> As you may notice, my main "job" with regards to media stuff is to be
> the media core maintainer. My work as a driver maintainer or as a
> developer is forced to go to a second plane, as my time is limited.
> So, I generally trust that driver developers are doing the right
> thing.
>
> ATM, I won't have anytime soon to test patches. So, if those patches 
> require any test from me, they'll need to be postponed to 3.10, as I'm
> finishing the handling of the patches for 3.9 today.
>
> Also, from my side, there are simply too much patches sent to me, either
> on my inbox (where I never read) and/or at linux-media ML. The last ones
> I get from patchwork. Sometimes, even before picking the patches, I tag
> everything with RFC or REVIEW on it as RFC. Then I handle the remaining
> ones. This is to reduce the load to an acceptable work queue.
>
> So, if you think that the USB patches are ok, just send it to the ML
> without tagging it, and I'll analyze and apply if I believe that they're
> ok. I'll eventually test the em28xx driver later, when I found some time.
>
> If otherwise you think they may not be ready yet, the better to wait
> for Devin to test, if it has some time, or send me a separate email asking
> for me to test the patches.
>
> Regards,
> Mauro

Mauro,
I know you are very busy and I agree that maintaining the media-tree has
a higher priority than maintaining a driver.
You are doing a good job and if there's anything I can do to make your
life easier, please tell me !

But this is about regression which exists now for several weeks in the
media-tree and we are getting close to the next merge window.
As you have said yourself before, if you have set a patch to RFC, you
usually never look at it again.
Which means that this regression very likely makes it into mainline in a
few days.

Don't you think this is a valid case for people to bother you ? ;)

Everthing you need to know to decide about this patch is written in the
patch description and the reply I've sent.

Anyway, I will resend the patch without RFC and I will also resend the
ioctl-fixes series marked with REVIEW.
For me, it seems to be unnecessary extra work for you, but if you prefer
it that way - no problem for me.

Regards,
Frank

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Prabhakar Lad]

Hi Mauro,

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Patchwork <patchwork@linuxtv.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
>
>  * [2/2] media: davinci: vpif_display: move displaying of error to approppraite place
>      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/18092/
>     was: Under Review
>     now: Accepted
>
>  * [1/2] media: davinci: vpif: remove unwanted header file inclusion
>      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/18093/
>     was: Under Review
>     now: Accepted
>
The above patches have been marked as 'Accepted', However I haven’t
issued a pull request nor I find the patches in your master branch. Something
wrong while updating patchwork ?

Regards,
--Prabhakar

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Hans Verkuil]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:50:50 Prabhakar Lad wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Patchwork <patchwork@linuxtv.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
> >
> >  * [2/2] media: davinci: vpif_display: move displaying of error to approppraite place
> >      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/18092/
> >     was: Under Review
> >     now: Accepted
> >
> >  * [1/2] media: davinci: vpif: remove unwanted header file inclusion
> >      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/18093/
> >     was: Under Review
> >     now: Accepted
> >
> The above patches have been marked as 'Accepted', However I haven’t
> issued a pull request nor I find the patches in your master branch. Something
> wrong while updating patchwork ?

Since I'm the submaintainer these days for such patches I'm the one that
accepted them. Patches for 3.11 I keep here:

http://git.linuxtv.org/hverkuil/media_tree.git/shortlog/refs/heads/for-v3.11

I can't post a pull request for it yet since the 3.11 window isn't open yet,
but I'm collecting all patches there, otherwise things would just pile up.

Regards,

	Hans

> 
> Regards,
> --Prabhakar
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated

[Prabhakar Lad]

Hi Hans,

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:50:50 Prabhakar Lad wrote:
>> Hi Mauro,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Patchwork <patchwork@linuxtv.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork:
>> >
>> >  * [2/2] media: davinci: vpif_display: move displaying of error to approppraite place
>> >      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/18092/
>> >     was: Under Review
>> >     now: Accepted
>> >
>> >  * [1/2] media: davinci: vpif: remove unwanted header file inclusion
>> >      - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/18093/
>> >     was: Under Review
>> >     now: Accepted
>> >
>> The above patches have been marked as 'Accepted', However I haven’t
>> issued a pull request nor I find the patches in your master branch. Something
>> wrong while updating patchwork ?
>
> Since I'm the submaintainer these days for such patches I'm the one that
> accepted them. Patches for 3.11 I keep here:
>
> http://git.linuxtv.org/hverkuil/media_tree.git/shortlog/refs/heads/for-v3.11
>
Thanks

> I can't post a pull request for it yet since the 3.11 window isn't open yet,
> but I'm collecting all patches there, otherwise things would just pile up.
>
Yes agreed!

Regards,
--Prabhakar

> Regards,
>
>         Hans
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> --Prabhakar
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>