Re: GVT-g status (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915/gvt: Deadcoding)

Zhenyu Wang
2025-01-11T05:26:05Z

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:49:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 04:30:20PM +0900, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 12:25:09AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> > Note: zhenyuw@linux.intel.com's address bounces:
> >> >
> >>
> >> yeah, I've left Intel so can't use that box any more, looks Rodrigo hasn't
> >> queue up my address change patch yet. Rodrigo?
> >
> > pushed to drm-intel-next now, although I was assuming this to come
> > on a gvt pull request...
> >
> > what about this patch here? coming in a PR or should I take this
> > directly at drm-intel-next as well?
>
> AFAICT the last gvt-next pull request was more than two years ago and
> gvt-fixes slightly less than one year ago.
>
> There's a single cleanup commit in gvt-next applied two years ago for
> which there hasn't been a pull request.
>
> The GVT github page [1] says, "This repository has been archived by the
> owner on Oct 3, 2024. It is now read-only." The intel-gvt-dev mailing
> list [2] appears to be mostly spam.
>
> Seems to me something like this would be appropriate:
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 1c3eab5d2b1a..161206fdaf05 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -11557,11 +11557,10 @@ F: drivers/gpio/gpio-tangier.h
> INTEL GVT-g DRIVERS (Intel GPU Virtualization)
> M: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com>
> M: Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com>
> -L: intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> L: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> -S: Supported
> +S: Maintained
> W: https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/wiki
> -T: git https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git
> +T: git https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel.git
> F: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/
>

Looks fine with me.

Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com>

> INTEL HID EVENT DRIVER
>
> But I don't think it would be far from the truth to have "S: Odd Fixes"
> either. And the extreme would be to just remove the whole maintainers
> entry and have it fall back to the i915 entry.
>
> Thoughts?
>

When I left Intel, I have raised similar question to manager or related
people to see their ideas on how to keep GVT-g maintenance work for upstream,
but I didn't get real answers before my last day at Intel...So still cc some
intel gvt related people to double confirm.

For me, it's fine to remove the maintainer entry maybe only keep as reviewer?

Thanks to raise up this issue, Jani!