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]

Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:55:09 +0000
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:     Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...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 05/12/17 14:37, Jason Wessel wrote:
> 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. :-)

Great to hear from you again! I shall consider this patch nacked or the 
time being ;-)... and if you are happy with help from me I shall leave 
it to you to propose an update to MAINTAINERS.


> 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.

I, for one, would be interested to see these.


Daniel.