patches dropped from drm-misc-next [Was: Re: [PATCH 00/53] drm: Convert to platform remove callback returning] void
Geert Uytterhoeven
geert at linux-m68k.org
Mon Jun 19 06:25:28 PDT 2023
Hi Maxime,
CC sfr
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 2:51 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:53:42PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:45:37AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 10:57:23AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 9:15 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > > > > > > <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Together with the patches that were applied later the topmost commit
> > > > > > > > from this series is c2807ecb5290 ("drm/omap: Convert to platform remove
> > > > > > > > callback returning void"). This commit was part for the following next
> > > > > > > > tags:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > $ git tag -l --contains c2807ecb5290
> > > > > > > > next-20230609
> > > > > > > > next-20230613
> > > > > > > > next-20230614
> > > > > > > > next-20230615
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However in next-20230616 they are missing. In next-20230616
> > > > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next was cf683e8870bd4be0fd6b98639286700a35088660.
> > > > > > > > Compared to c2807ecb5290 this adds 1149 patches but drops 37 (that are
> > > > > > > > also not included with a different commit id). The 37 patches dropped
> > > > > > > > are 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > $ git shortlog -s 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290
> > > > > > > > 1 Christophe JAILLET
> > > > > > > > 2 Jessica Zhang
> > > > > > > > 5 Karol Wachowski
> > > > > > > > 1 Laura Nao
> > > > > > > > 27 Uwe Kleine-König
> > > > > > > > 1 Wang Jianzheng
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess this was done by mistake because nobody told me about dropping
> > > > > > > > my/these patches? Can c2807ecb5290 please be merged into drm-misc-next
> > > > > > > > again?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, it was probably a mistake that these patches got merged to
> > > > > > > linuxnext during the 4 days that you noticed. However, your patches
> > > > > > > aren't dropped and are still present in drm-misc-next.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > drm-misc has a bit of a unique model and it's documented fairly well here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a flaw then in this unique model (or its implementation) when
> > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next moves in a non-fast-forward manner? This isn't
> > > > > > expected, is it?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's no expectation afaik. Any tree merged in linux-next can be
> > > > > rebased, drop a patch, amend one, etc. without any concern.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that there are no rules broken for a tree that is included in
> > > > next and a maintainer is free to rewrite their tree independant of the
> > > > tree being included in next.
> > > >
> > > > Still I think that shouldn't be used as an excuse.
> > >
> > > As an excuse for what?
> >
> > Just because the rules for trees in next allow the merged branch to be
> > rewritten, shouldn't be used to justify rewriting the branch.
> >
> > IMHO you still should ensure that only commits make it into any next
> > snapshot via your tree before X-rc1 for some X (e.g. v6.5) that you
> > intend to be included in X-rc1.
>
> That's never been a next rule either. Rust support has been in next for
> almost a year without being sent as a PR for example.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst#L297
"The linux-next tree is, by design, a snapshot of what the mainline
is expected to look like after the next merge window closes."
The general rule for linux-next is that its contents are intended to end
up in the next kernel release, and that it should not contain commits
that are intended for the next-next release, cfr. what Stephen sends
out to new trees:
"You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
[...]
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window."
and what he requests regularly in his announces, e.g.:
"Please do not add any v6.4 related commits to your linux-next included
branches until after v6.3-rc1 has been released."
AFAIU, the exception to the rule is new, self-contained, and sometimes
controversial development, which may have to cook for a few more cycles,
if it ends up in a PR at all.
> > > > For me, if a maintainer puts some patch into next that's a statement
> > > > saying (approximately) "I think this patch is fine and I intend to
> > > > send it to Linus during the next merge window.".
> > >
> > > I mean, that's what we're saying and doing?
> >
> > No, on 2023-06-09 I assumed that my patches will go into v6.5-rc1 (as it
> > was part of next-20230609). A few days later however the patches were
> > dropped.
> >
> > The two options that would have made the experience smoother for me are:
> >
> > a) keep c2807ecb5290 in next and send it for v6.5-rc1; or
>
> That's not an option. You were simply too late for v6.5-rc1, unless you
> expect us to get rid of timezones and work on week-ends. But surely you
> don't.
I don't think anyone expects you to do that...
> > b) keep c2807ecb5290 in a branch that doesn't result it entering next
> > before v6.5-rc1.
>
> All the drm-misc committers use dim. If that's a concern for you, feel
> free to send a patch addressing this to dim.
So you say this is an issue with the tooling? ;-)
If the tooling breaks the rules, perhaps the tooling should be fixed?
> > > > So my expectation is that if a patch is dropped again from next, there
> > > > was a problem and it would be fair if the maintainer tells the
> > > > author/submitter about this problem and that the patch was dropped.
> > >
> > > But it wasn't dropped,
> >
> > From my POV it was dropped from next as it was part of next between
> > next-20230609 and next-20230615 but not any more since next-20230616.
> > You talk about (not) being dropped from some branch in drm-misc, that's
> > irrelevant for the thing I'm complaining about.
>
> You were never told that they were merged in linux-next, but in
> drm-misc-next. If they did, it's mostly an unfortunate artifact.
>
> We have a documentation that explains the process and how drm-misc-next
> works. If that's still confusing somehow, feel free to amend it to make
> it clearer.
Why that document may apply to drm-misc-next, everything that appears
in linux-next should follow the linux-next process
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst#L256
> > > it's still very much to be sent to Linus during the next merge window.
> >
> > "next merge window" as in the one leading to 6.5-rc1? Either we mean
> > different things when we say "next merge window", or there is a
> > misunderstanding I don't see yet.
>
> Linus doesn't want to receive in a PR patches that haven't been in
> linux-next for at least two weeks. In most cases that's rc6, which means
> that by the time we send our last PR before rc6, the
> next-merge-window-while-still-meeting-Linus-requirements is 6.6.
>
> The rule applies to all trees, and it's why the soc tree also requires
> its submaintainers to submit their PR before -rc6.
Unless there's a very good reason to deviate from that (e.g. a bug fix).
> So yeah, sorry if it was confusing. At the end of the day, it's a
> compromise, and I can't find a better one for everyone involved
> (maintainers, contributors and committers alike) off the top of my head.
As I understand, the main issue Uwe is objecting to, is that his
patches ended up in linux-next first, only to be dropped again from
linux-next later, and that there was no communication about the
latter.
If you're not constantly working on a subsystem, it can be very hard
to keep track of the status of your own drive-by patches. When patches
get applied, appear in linux-next, and disappear from linux-next again
later, it's worse...
Thanks for your understanding!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list