Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:03:01 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler |
| |
On Thu, 03 Jun 2021, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 09:48:59AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > On 6/3/21 9:38 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:43:36PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > >>> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 15:52, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > >>>> > > >>>> Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart > > >>>> directly. > > >>>> > > >>>> Select a high priority of 192 to ensure that default restart handlers > > >>>> are replaced if Xen is running. > > >>>> > > >>>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > >>>> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > >>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > >>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>>> > > >>> This patch does appear to be useful. > > >>> > > >>> Is this just being solved in downstream trees at the moment? > > >>> > > >>> It would be nice if we could relinquish people of this burden and get it > > >>> into Mainline finally. > > >>> > > >> There must have been half a dozen attempts to send this patch series > > >> upstream. I have tried, and others have tried. Each attempt failed with > > >> someone else objecting for non-technical reasons (such as "we need more > > >> reviews") or no reaction at all, and maintainers just don't pick it up. > > > Looking at the *-by tag list above, I think we have enough quality > > > reviews to take this forward. > > > > > >> So, yes, this patch series can only be found in downstream trees, > > >> and it seems pointless to submit it yet again. > > > IMHO, it's unfair to burden multiple downstream trees with this purely > > > due to poor or nervy maintainership. Functionality as broadly useful > > > as this should be merged and maintained in Mainline. > > > > > > OOI, who is blocking? As I see it, we have 2 of the key maintainers > > > in the *-by list. With those on-board, it's difficult to envisage > > > what the problem is. > > > > > > Stefano (who is ARM Xen maintainer) left Citrix a while ago. He is at sstabellini@kernel.org (which I added to the CC line). > > Stefano already reviewed this patch, which is part of a larger series > that primarily touches 32-bit ARM code, but also touches 64-bit ARM > code as well. > > As I said in my previous reply, I don't see that there's any problem > with getting these patches merged had the usual processes been > followed - either ending up in the patch system, or the pull request > being sent to me directly. > > Sadly, the pull request was sent to the arm-soc people excluding me, > I happened to notice it and requested to see the patches that were > being asked to be pulled (since I probably couldn't find them)... > and it then took two further weeks before the patches were posted, > which I then missed amongst all the other email. > > It's a process failure and unfortunate timing rather than anything > malicious.
Understood.
Is there anything I can do to help this forward?
I can either collect and re-submit the patches to the MLs if that makes people's lives any easier. Or if one of the original submitters wish to retain responsibility, I have no qualms with that either.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |