Hi Christian,
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, 18:10 Daniel Vetter, daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 26.06.20 um 06:43 schrieb Sumit Semwal:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 01:24, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
Ignoring everything else ...
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:28 PM Jani Nikula <
jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
As a side note, there seem to be extra checks in place for acks when applying non-i915 patches to drm-intel; there are no such checks for drm-misc.
One option to generalize that that I pondered is to consult get_maintainers.pl asking for git repo link, and if that returns something else, then insist that there's an ack from a relevant maintainer. It's a bit of typing, but I think the bigger problem is that there's a ton of false positives.
Right; for the particular patch, I wasn't even in the to: or cc: field and that made it slip from my radar. I would definitely ask any one sending patches for dma-buf directory to follow the get_maintainers.pl religiously.
But maybe that's a good thing, would give some motivation to keep MAINTAINERS updated.
Should I maybe add myself as maintainer as well? I've written enough stuff in there to know the code quite a bit.
I think that makes lots of sense, since defacto you already are :-)
If you feel like bikeshed, get_maintainers.pl also supports R: for reviewer, but given that you also push patches to drm-misc M: for maintainer feels more accurate.
I think given you've been reviewing and changing most of the code around dma-fences, it should be ok to add you as the maintainer for those bits?
-Daniel
Best, Sumit.