Re: nvme emulation merge process (was: Re: [PATCH 00/10] hw/block/nvme: namespace types and zoned namespaces)

[Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 15:18 +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> On Jul  1 12:34, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 30.06.2020 um 22:36 hat Klaus Jensen geschrieben:
> > > On Jun 30 08:42, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:09:46PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > > What I see doable for the following days is:
> > > > > - hw/block/nvme: Fix I/O BAR structure [3]
> > > > > - hw/block/nvme: handle transient dma errors
> > > > > - hw/block/nvme: bump to v1.3
> > > > 
> > > > These look like sensible patches to rebase future work on, IMO. The 1.3
> > > > updates had been prepared a while ago, at least.
> > > 
> > > I think Philippe's "hw/block/nvme: Fix I/O BAR structure" series is a
> > > no-brainer. It just needs to get in asap.
> > 
> > I think we need to talk about how nvme patches are supposed to get
> > merged. I'm not familiar with the hardware nor the code, so the model
> > was that I just blindly merge patches that Keith has reviewed/acked,
> > just to spare him the work to prepare a pull request. But obviously, we
> > started doing things this way when there was a lot less activity around
> > the nvme emulation.
> > 
> > If we find that this doesn't scale any more, maybe we need to change
> > something.
> 
> Honestly, I do not think the current model has worked very well for some
> time; especially for larger series where I, for one, has felt that my
> work was largely ignored due to a lack of designated reviewers. Things
> only picked up when Beata, Maxim and Philippe started reviewing my
> series - maybe out of pity or because I was bombing the list, I don't
> know ;)
> 
> We've also seen good patches from Andrzej linger on the list for quite a
> while, prompting a number of RESENDs. I only recently allocated more
> time and upped my review game, but I hope that contributors feel that
> stuff gets reviewed in a timely fashion by now.
> 
> Please understand that this is in NO WAY a criticism of Keith who
> already made it very clear to me that he did not have a lot time to
> review, but only ack the odd patch.
> 
> > Depending on how much time Keith can spend on review in the
> > near future and how much control he wants to keep over the development,
> > I could imagine adding Klaus to MAINTAINERS, either as a co-maintainer
> > or as a reviewer. Then I could rely on reviews/acks from either of you
> > for merging series.
> > 
> 
> I would be happy to step up (officially) to help maintain the device
> with Keith and review on a daily basis, and my position can support
> this.
> 
> > Of course, the patches don't necessarily have to go through my tree
> > either if this only serves to complicate things these days. If sending
> > separate pull requests directly to Peter would make things easier, I
> > certainly wouldn't object.
> > 
> 
> I don't think there is any reason to by-pass your tree. I think the
> volume would need to increase even further for that to make sense.
> 
It my fault as well - I need to get back to reviewing these.
(I'll review few of them today I hope)

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky