[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add arm@kernel.org as the list for arm64 defconfig changes

Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm at kernel.org,
otherwise they will not get picked up.  Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure
the get_maintainers includes it.

Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <redacted>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 58590cf..da2b06b 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS

@@ -2066,6 +2066,13 @@ S:	Maintained
 F:	arch/arm64/
 F:	Documentation/arm64/
 
+ARM64 DEFCONFIG
+M:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
+M:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
+L:	arm at kernel.org
+S:	Maintained
+F:	arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+
 AS3645A LED FLASH CONTROLLER DRIVER
 M:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
 L:	linux-media at vger.kernel.org

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm at kernel.org,
otherwise they will not get picked up.  Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure
the get_maintainers includes it.

arm at kernel.org is not a mailing list, it is an alias to those who deal
with those requests.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm at kernel.org,
otherwise they will not get picked up.  Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure
the get_maintainers includes it.

There are other patches that go through arm at kernel.org like
arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS
entry (I don't remember the reasons).

-- 
Catalin

On 05/03/2017 12:01 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

quoted

quoted

Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm at kernel.org,
otherwise they will not get picked up.  Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure
the get_maintainers includes it.

There are other patches that go through arm at kernel.org like
arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS
entry (I don't remember the reasons).

I'm happy to add additional paths/files, but without a MAINTAINERS entry,
how would anyone know to CC: that address?  I posted 3 versions of my
defconfig patchset before someone told me that I had to send it to
arm at kernel.org.

Anyway, I really hope it's not too late for my defconfig changes to make
4.12.  Please consider them.  Thank you.

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:08:21PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

On 05/03/2017 12:01 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

quoted

quoted

Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm at kernel.org,
otherwise they will not get picked up.  Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure
the get_maintainers includes it.

There are other patches that go through arm at kernel.org like
arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS
entry (I don't remember the reasons).

I'm happy to add additional paths/files, but without a MAINTAINERS entry,
how would anyone know to CC: that address?  I posted 3 versions of my
defconfig patchset before someone told me that I had to send it to
arm at kernel.org.

Most of the time it's the arm-soc guys pushing changes to defconfig,
though on occasion the arm64 maintainers make some changes as well.

Anyway, I really hope it's not too late for my defconfig changes to make
4.12.  Please consider them.  Thank you.

I'm usually fine with such updates immediately after -rc1 but I can't
speak for the arm-soc folk.

-- 
Catalin

Hello,

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Timur Tabi [off-list ref] wrote:

On 05/03/2017 12:01 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

quoted

quoted

Any changes to arch/arm64/configs/defconfig must be sent to arm at kernel.org,
otherwise they will not get picked up.  Add a MAINTAINERS entry to ensure
the get_maintainers includes it.

There are other patches that go through arm at kernel.org like
arch/arm64/boot/dts/ but the arm-soc guys didn't want a MAINTAINERS
entry (I don't remember the reasons).

I'm happy to add additional paths/files, but without a MAINTAINERS entry,
how would anyone know to CC: that address?  I posted 3 versions of my
defconfig patchset before someone told me that I had to send it to
arm at kernel.org.

arm at kernel.org as an email alias will break down if it starts being
cc:d on large number of patches. Ideally we want the platform
maintainers as filters/reviewers in front to keep the volume down. So
far it's been kept to nearly only material from maintainers, and
mostly pull requests.

Defconfig changes usually come in through maintainers. Said
maintainers already know to send code to us at arm at kernel.org for
their platforms. So this should probably go in through Andy Gross? You
didn't even cc him, so added now.

Anyway, I really hope it's not too late for my defconfig changes to make
4.12.  Please consider them.  Thank you.

We won't consider any patches at this very time, since we're in the
middle of the merge window. Main priority right now is to prepare the
material we have for pull requests and merge.

This is not the time to send us new material, but you probably already
know that.


-Olof

On 05/03/2017 12:26 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

arm at kernel.org as an email alias will break down if it starts being
cc:d on large number of patches. Ideally we want the platform
maintainers as filters/reviewers in front to keep the volume down. So
far it's been kept to nearly only material from maintainers, and
mostly pull requests.

Defconfig changes usually come in through maintainers. Said
maintainers already know to send code to us at arm at kernel.org for
their platforms. So this should probably go in through Andy Gross? You
didn't even cc him, so added now.

How would I know to CC: him, or anyone else, without a MAINTAINERS entry?
I've already posted these patches 5 times, and every time I do, someone
tells me that I'm CCing the wrong person.

Are you saying that I should send the 9 patches to 9 different people, and
just pray that they all get merged in properly?  Each of the maintainers is
going to ask for an ACK from an ARM maintainer anyway, whoever he is (I
don't know any more).

There's got to be a better way.

We won't consider any patches at this very time, since we're in the
middle of the merge window. Main priority right now is to prepare the
material we have for pull requests and merge.

This is not the time to send us new material, but you probably already
know that.

Fair enough, but the patches aren't new.  They've been been floating on the
list for three weeks now.

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Timur Tabi [off-list ref] wrote:

On 05/03/2017 12:26 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

arm at kernel.org as an email alias will break down if it starts being
cc:d on large number of patches. Ideally we want the platform
maintainers as filters/reviewers in front to keep the volume down. So
far it's been kept to nearly only material from maintainers, and
mostly pull requests.

Defconfig changes usually come in through maintainers. Said
maintainers already know to send code to us at arm at kernel.org for
their platforms. So this should probably go in through Andy Gross? You
didn't even cc him, so added now.

How would I know to CC: him, or anyone else, without a MAINTAINERS entry?
I've already posted these patches 5 times, and every time I do, someone
tells me that I'm CCing the wrong person.

There's a handy tool called get_maintainer:

olof at brutus:~/work/linux ((52aa3ec...)) $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl
-f arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] (maintainer:ARM64 PORT
(AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE),commit_signer:6/61=10%)
Will Deacon [off-list ref] (maintainer:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE))
Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] (commit_signer:10/61=16%)
Kevin Hilman [off-list ref] (commit_signer:9/61=15%,authored:6/61=10%)
Olof Johansson [off-list ref] (commit_signer:6/61=10%)
Wei Xu [off-list ref] (commit_signer:6/61=10%)

If you read the output, you can see that the people who have applied
most of these patches have been Will, Arnd, Kevin and myself. Adding
those on Cc could have been a good first step.

Are you saying that I should send the 9 patches to 9 different people, and
just pray that they all get merged in properly?  Each of the maintainers is
going to ask for an ACK from an ARM maintainer anyway, whoever he is (I
don't know any more).

There's got to be a better way.

No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through
Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer
to help guide you through the system if needed.

quoted

We won't consider any patches at this very time, since we're in the
middle of the merge window. Main priority right now is to prepare the
material we have for pull requests and merge.

This is not the time to send us new material, but you probably already
know that.

Fair enough, but the patches aren't new.  They've been been floating on the
list for three weeks now.

While I understand your frustration, this is also not how it works at our end.

Sometimes we tweak defconfigs late in the merge window and sometimes
even during early -rc, so let us get back to this after we've handled
the merges.


-Olof

On 05/03/2017 12:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through
Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer
to help guide you through the system if needed.

Will told me that defconfig patches should go to arm at kernel.org, but you're
telling me they should go to Andy instead.

Andy's being the platform maintainer is news to me.  I'm not saying he
isn't, but I can't remember the last time I involved him in any patches of ours.

Either way, I think there should be a designated maintainer for
arch/arm64/configs/defconfig, and I think that person/alias should be in
MAINTAINERS.

Sometimes we tweak defconfigs late in the merge window and sometimes
even during early -rc, so let us get back to this after we've handled
the merges.

Ok, thank you.

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

On 05/03/2017 12:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through
Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer
to help guide you through the system if needed.

Will told me that defconfig patches should go to arm at kernel.org, but you're
telling me they should go to Andy instead.

defconfig patches go via arm at kernel.org, because they pick them up from the
platform maintainers. However, given that the merge window is open (and my
understanding is that you want these in for 4.12!), I suggested mailing them
directly to arm at kernel.org to get their opinion, which they promptly provided ;)

Apologies for the confusion,

Will

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

On 05/03/2017 12:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

No, I'm not saying that, and there is a better way: Send it through
Andy if in doubt -- it should be his job as your platform maintainer
to help guide you through the system if needed.

Will told me that defconfig patches should go to arm at kernel.org, but you're
telling me they should go to Andy instead.

Andy's being the platform maintainer is news to me.  I'm not saying he
isn't, but I can't remember the last time I involved him in any patches of ours.

If it is Qualcomm related, it generally goes through me.  And I send it up
through the arm soc guys (kevin, olof, and arnd).

Either way, I think there should be a designated maintainer for
arch/arm64/configs/defconfig, and I think that person/alias should be in
MAINTAINERS.

I disagree here.  We've generally had defconfigs go up through the disparate ARM
board maintainers and they get collated by arm-soc.  It's easy when it's
something like qcom_defconfig, but get_maintainer doesn't give you the correct
name if you are going for multiv7 or some of the default configs.


Andy