Re: [PATCH] fence: Use smp_mb__before_atomic()

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3273 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 04:57:07PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> 
> On 30 May 2014 21:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:15:05AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:51:45PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > Commit febdbfe8a91c (arch: Prepare for smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic())
> >> > > deprecated the smp_mb__{before,after}_{atomic,clear}_{dec,inc,bit}*()
> >> > > functions in favour of the unified smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic().
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  drivers/base/fence.c | 4 ++--
> >> >
> >> > Where does this file come from?  I've not seen it before, and it's not
> >> > in my tree.
> >>
> >> I think it came in through Sumit's tree and it's only in linux-next I
> >> believe.
> >
> > Odd, linux-next is for merging things in Linus's next release.
> >
> > And as I have never seen this code that will end up being my
> > responsibility to maintain, it seems strange that it will be merged in
> > the next kernel development cycle.
> >
> > What broke down here with our review process that required something to
> > be merged without at least a cc: to me?
> 
> This is a new file added by Maarten's patches [1], that got reviewed
> on dri-devel and other mailing lists. Since it was quite closely
> associated with dma-buf, I figured I should take it through the
> dma-buf tree.
> 
> I am sorry I didn't notice that you weren't CC'ed on these patches -
> Sincere apologies, since I should've noticed that during the patch
> review process - I would take part of the blame here as well  :(
> 
> I do realize now that atleast on my part, I should've asked you before
> taking it through the dma-buf tree - I will make sure things like this
> don't happen again through me.
> 
> May I request you to help us handle this - would it help if we add
> Maarten as the maintainer for this file? Any other suggestions?

Perhaps something like the following would help?

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index fb39c9c3f0c1..d582f54adec8 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -2867,7 +2867,9 @@ L:        linux-media@vger.kernel.org
 L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 L:	linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
 F:	drivers/base/dma-buf*
+F:	drivers/base/fence.c
 F:	include/linux/dma-buf*
+F:	include/linux/fence.h
 F:	Documentation/dma-buf-sharing.txt
 T:	git git://git.linaro.org/people/sumitsemwal/linux-dma-buf.git
@@ -2936,6 +2938,8 @@ T:        git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git
 S:	Supported
 F:	Documentation/kobject.txt
 F:	drivers/base/
+X:	drivers/base/dma-buf*
+X:	drivers/base/fence.c
 F:	fs/sysfs/
 F:	fs/debugfs/
 F:	include/linux/kobj*

That removes Greg from the list generated by get_maintainer.pl for
anything that touches the DMA-BUF files.

Thinking about it, perhaps moving DMA-BUF into its own subdirectory
would be an option too, to make the separation more obvious.

That is, if that's something that Greg wants.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]