linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the watchdog tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 May 2017 14:58:22 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the
 watchdog tree

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:30:46PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:57:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > > From my perspective, the most direct solution would be to drop these two patches
> > > from the watchdog tree and let them go through the platform driver x86 tree with
> > > Guenter's Acked-by. If you have additional patches which depend on these two,
> > > then if you will provide an immutable branch we can merge, we can do that too
> > > (but I try to keep the number of external merges to a minimum - which is
> > > becoming increasingly difficult lately for some reason).
> > 
> > Sorry for not being in doubt, I just decided that Ack from Guenter
> > means that default case is to go through PDx86 tree without any
> > additional agreement.
> 
> I assumed that was the case, yes. I read through the thread and would have
> thought the same. As Guenter is directing us to Wim, I think the MAINTAINERS
> file doesn't really capture the logistics of the watchdog maintainer model, as a

Now I am confused. Please apologize my lack of understanding.

I am listed as "Reviewer", not "Maintainer", for watchdog drivers.
Please let me know how that does not capture the logistics of the watchdog
(or any other) maintainer model, and how to better reflect that I review
watchdog patches and Wim, as maintainer, sends them to Linus. I thought that
is what "R:" and "M:" is for ?

The only possibly unusual detail is that I maintain a branch with all patches
I have reviewed. This branch is picked up by Wim and either accepted as-is or,
if he does not agree with some patch, modified accordingly. This branch is
not in linux-next and thus not part of any official maintainer model,
but exists for convenience and to enable additional testing through 0day
and my own test farm.

> Reviewed-by from a listed maintainer wouldn't be typical unless they expected
> someone else to merge it - in this case, I suppose Guenter meant Wim and not us
> :-)
> 

You are correct, "Reviewed-by:" typically is intended for Wim, as I thought
it would be expected for a designated reviewer. I tend to use "Acked-by:"
if I assume or expect that a patch will be picked up by a different maintainer,
though I typically add a note saying that this is the case (no idea if I did
that here). Is there some different set of tags I should use ?

On a side note, it appears that I tagged "watchdog: iTCO_wdt: cleanup
set/unset no_reboot_bit functions" with "Reviewed-by:", not with "Acked-by:".

Thanks,
Guenter