Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] ARM: OMAP2+: cleaned-up DT support of various ECC schemes

Brian Norris
2013-09-25T20:12:06Z

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:24:26PM +0000, Gupta, Pekon wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:46:19AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > + akpm
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:04:05PM -0500, Gupta, Pekon wrote:
> [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Dear Olof and other DT Maintainers,
> > > >
> > > > This patch series has missed multiple merge windows, and
> > > > much of the other development work on mtd/nand/omap
> > > > driver is gated due to this.
> >
> > Also, to be fair here: you only started CC'ing the appropriate DT
> > people/list around v4, after which you got a (somewhat) prompt and
> > thorough review of the DT bindings. Then several months passed before
> > you addressed the reviews. So the "multiple merge windows" is not
> > entirely to be blamed on others ;)
> >
> > Brian
>
> Few points I would like to clarify here, *without* pointing anyone..
>
> (1) It was Olof's comments which directed me to cc: devicetree-discuss list.
> So wrong list was always cc-ed till v4.
> Refer http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/249662
>
> (2) The devicetree list has been updated in MAINTAINER file towards
> end of July (22/July/2013) in following commit. Whereas the patch v4
> was submitted on 2/July/2013. So I wasn't aware of this new DT maillist.
> commit d0fb18c5c0caf2ed0eecf3d0145450ae708ed75a
> Commit: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
> CommitDate: 2013-07-22

Did you not notice the 'bounce' emails once Grant made the (IMO unwise)
decision to shut down the DT mailing list instead of just redirecting?

> (3) When a maintainer gives a NAK, I expect him to at-least give
> directions on what to change in the patch. There were no comments
> given, neither new patch reviewed by the DT maintainer even after
> sending multiple request directly.
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2013-July/047441.html
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2013-July/047629.html

Those are links to your own emails, not to any NAKs. Any NAKs I saw
listed reasons. I NAK'd based on the ABI breakage and lack of review by
the DT maintainership; Arnd NAK'd based on similar reasons; Olof later
(once you got the right list) gave constructive criticism on how to
remove the Linux-isms and other software implementation details from the
DT binding.

> Its only when Artem and yourself pitched in by sending a mail to
> new DT mail-list that the DT maintainer reviewed and provided the
> comments for fixes.
> But by that time 3.11-rc6 had already gone past, and so I knew this
> Series cannot go in, so I wanted to wait some more, to see if there
> were any more comments on this. And frankly I was too much
> frustrated by then.
>
> Just to speak my opinion.
> We all understand that maintainers are heavily loaded by tons of
> emails, And reviewing each patch instantly is not possible.
>
> But this load is now passing to developers like me as frustration,
> because most of energy is being spent in re-submitting patches
> again and again, without any proper direction or conclusion.
> And then there is no time and energy left for good work, where
> we can contribute to optimizing frame-works for performance or
> adding new features.
> So I see many good developers distracting away from mainline.

I sincerely hope that this isn't (or at least doesn't continue to be)
the norm.

> Thus, there should be a mechanism, where such load can be
> distributed, and there are less emails. And developers don't
> have to re-submit patch multiple times, by collecting most reviews
> at once. This way developer's like me can spend more time in doing
> other constructive things.

I understand your concerns. I have been frustrated with slow responses
on MTD stuff as well, which is why I'm stepping in to review and commit
more. But I see that your patch hit a unique combination of events that
helped slow things down even more than usual.

MTD maintainership has been slowing down for a while, and in the
midst of your patch series, I began stepping in to take care of some of
that load. I didn't quite have a good picture of what patches were
pending without comments at that point, so patch series like yours were
in limbo with no one to review.

Additionally, Grant stepped down from DT maintainership and
correspondingly shut down and transitioned the DT mailing list. This
directly affected your patch series.

Lastly, it is extra difficult to deal with patch sets like this that
cross subsystems and require reviews from multiple constituencies. And
that is even more difficult when you aren't even emailing the correct
people (for whatever reason).

I believe that many of the factors that slowed down your particular
series have been ameliorated.

Time has allowed developers to become more aware of the change in DT
maintainership and mailing list, and I can more promptly redirect
developers who are still CC'ing the wrong people/lists.

I am able to spend a little more time on MTD stuff, to help push
development along a little faster.

Olof has given good advice on your DT binding and has (slowly) been
responding to other requests for DT review that make it to his list. I
see that he hasn't followed up on your changes (this v6), so pinging him
(as you did) is probably the correct approach. But please do recognize
that the DT list is very high volume, so it's hard to get good timely
responses there.

Anyway, at this point I think your patch series should be nearly
complete. I made a few comments on your patches, and I'd imagine you
only should need one more revision (v7) before I can accept it to the
l2-mtd.git tree.

> Please consider this as constructive feedback, without targeting
> any individual or team.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Brian