linux-kernel - Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: kgdb: Replace Jason with Daniel

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]

Message-ID: <5e800c4c-aa71-0220-ec17-6856357cd6fc@windriver.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:37:17 -0600
From:   Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
CC:     <kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: kgdb: Replace Jason with
 Daniel

On 12/05/2017 08:09 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> 
>> ... with many, many thanks for Jason for all his hard work.
>>
>> Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>>      Over the years Jason has become increasingly hard to get hold off
>>      and I think he must now be regarded as inactive.
>>      
>>      Patches in kgdb-next (mine as it happens) have been there for over a
>>      year without a corresponding pull request and a couple of architecture
>>      specific kgdb fixes have ended up missing a release cycle (or two) as
>>      the architecture maintainer waits for an Acked-by from Jason.
>>      
>>      In the past I've had to rely on Andrew M. to land my own changes to
>>      kgdb and in the v4.14 cycle you'll find my Acked-by on b8347c219649
>>      ("x86/debug: Handle warnings before the notifier chain, to fix KGDB
>>      crash"). That I was sharing surrogate acks convinced me we need a
>>      change here and I've offered Jason help via private e-mail without
>>      reply.
>>      
>>      So, I really would prefer it it if this patch listed me as a
>>      co-maintainer or, failing that, as least had Jason's blessing... but
>>      it doesn't. I certainly suggest this patch takes a long time in
>>      review, and if it doesn't attract Jason's attention then I can only
>>      reiterate what is says in the commit log: Thanks Jason!
>>
>>   MAINTAINERS | 3 +--
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> It looks like Jason has been inactive in all aspects of upstream
> maintainership and as a contributor for well over a year now.

I have not been working directly on upstream kernel contributions for quite some time.  It doesn't mean I haven't been involved with kernel development.  Patches that I have reviewed or suggested to other developers generally don't bare my name.  I wouldn't mind trying to take a slightly more gradual passing of the baton and add Daniel as co-maintainer for a while before I retire from kernel work and merge myself away in the coming years. :-)

I have a series of 50+ patches for kgdb/kdb/usb which have never been published.  I am not saying that we actually need any of those patches, but it would be nice to let the community decide, and we can see if there is anything worth merging into the next cycle or future work with other maintainers.   My kernel.org tree stopped working a long time ago, probably from inactivity.  I'll see if that can get restored in the next few days, or I'll use my github tree and send the unpublished work to the mailing list as an RFC.  And for what it is worth if none of this happens by the end of 4.16, by all means Daniel has my blessing to be the sole maintainer.

Many thanks to Daniel for his contributions!

Cheers,
Jason.