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

[Klaus Jensen]

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.