Message-ID: <70b66bb7-3889-4c66-bbeb-e3961f16d7b9@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 14:27:14 +0200
From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil+cisco@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] docs: media: profile: make it clearer about
 maintainership duties

On 22/08/2025 10:33, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed
> that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear:
> such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS
> with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense).
> 
> This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty
> is implied at:
> 
> 	Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> 
> and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the
> status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in.
> 
> So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that
> maintainers need to do timely reviews.
> 
> Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to
> maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to
> accept other committers that don't have such duties.
> 
> So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties
> related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers
> they are maintainers as well.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++
>  Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst          | 6 +++---
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> index 41a1a2326bef..67a18f82f857 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -177,6 +177,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers::
>  On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at
>  linux-media@...r.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git.
>  
> +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as
> +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of

You probably mean "media maintainers" instead of "subsystem maintainers".

> +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge

e. g. -> e.g.

> +patches directly at the media-committers tree.
> +
>  When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers,
>  CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about
>  patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them or
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks.
>  Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between
>  all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer
>  well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code
> -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and
> -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org
> -updated.
> +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they
> +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at
> +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated.
>  
>  .. Note::
>  

I think that it would make sense to just merge these changes into the preceding
patches.

Regards,

	Hans

Powered by blists - more mailing lists