From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
"Subbaraman Narayanamurthy" <subbaram@codeaurora.org>,
"David Collins" <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
"Daniel Thompson" <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
"Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
"Joe Perches" <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:50:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200522125028.GG2163848@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200522113147.GU271301@dell>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6706 bytes --]
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2020, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
> > > > > > > things like flooding and spamming. One of those protections is a
> > > > > > > check for "Too many recipients to the message". Most of the time this
> > > > > > > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
> > > > > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
> > > > > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
> > > > > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl? If so, consider pruning
> > > > > > > that a little. Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
> > > > > > > changes to a file. As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
> > > > > > > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
> > > > > > > years ago. Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
> > > > > > > instance and see how far that takes you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets
> > > > > > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the
> > > > > > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain
> > > > > > unreviewed by anyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care
> > > > > even less than your original group). However it *is* a good argument
> > > > > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of
> > > > > the patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
> > > > > > > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
> > > > > > > ML. It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
> > > > > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the
> > > > > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > Great. Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the
> > > > > Acks you need on your remaining patches.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe,
> > > >
> > > > In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed
> > > > past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches
> > > > (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added
> > > > what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of
> > > > times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, and
> > > > somehow it seems like this set has lost traction.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more
> > > > eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain
> > > > unreviewed.
> > >
> > > Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again).
> > >
> > > This has been a common theme over the past few months.
> > >
> > > Perhaps he has changed employer/project?
> >
> > My work on PWM is purely done in my spare time. I don't get paid for any
> > of it. I currently have two kids that need home-schooling, as many
> > others probably do, and I have a full time job doing non-PWM related
> > things. As a result my spare time is close to nil these days.
>
> This is no different to many others. I too am not paid for this work,
> but it's still my responsibly to ensure a reply within a reasonable
> amount of time.
I realize that this is the same for many others. Still, you seemed to
suggest that the lack of time that I was able to spend on PWM was
somehow related to me changing employers, so I wanted to clarify that
this isn't
> We can all appreciate that the latest situation has exacerbated issues,
> but a reasonable level of PWM participation, blocking various
> patch-sets has been lacking for months before we'd even heard of
> Covid-19 [0].
Covid-19 started to impact me around mid-March, and you'll see that
that's about the time that I stopped maintaining patchwork.
> If you need help, just ask for it.
Hm... who do you go and ask for help? Every maintainer I know is already
at least as busy as I am.
> I am willing to step up and review patches if you're overloaded. Uwe
> is already listed as a designated reviewer. Perhaps between the 3 of
> us we can work something out in order to reduce the latency.
That's very kind of you. Yes, I'd be willing to do this as a sort of
group maintenance, and perhaps even eventually step away from my role
as maintainer entirely if I think somebody else will do a better job.
I do still care about the PWM subsystem, having looked after it for a
couple of years, so I do want any hand-off to be somewhat orderly.
> [0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/
>
> > I very much appreciate all the effort that others have spent in getting
> > this reviewed. I haven't been able to keep a very close eye on this, but
> > even the latest versions have some comments, so I didn't consider this
> > ready yet. If that's changed and everybody's okay with the changes, then
> > I can apply this to for-next. We haven't got all that much time left
> > before the merge window and I had hoped this would be ready earlier so
> > that we'd have more time for this in linux-next. But I'd be willing to
> > at least give it a try. If it starts to look like there are going to be
> > issues with this I can always back them out and we can have another go
> > next release.
>
> If you would be so kind as to review the PWM patches, I can take them
> in but I can't do anything without your Ack.
Looking at v14 I think there are no longer any discussions (looks like
the last comment I thought was from v14 was actually on v13 and it seems
to have been solved in v14 now) and there are Acked-bys for all the non-
PWM patches, so there's nothing in the way of me applying this to the
PWM tree. I can let it soak there for a few days and send out a stable
branch if anyone needs it if there aren't any huge issues.
Does that sound like a plan?
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-22 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1587523702.git.gurus@codeaurora.org>
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-24 6:17 ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-24 22:17 ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-27 13:48 ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 02/11] hwmon: pwm-fan: " Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 03/11] ir-rx51: " Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 04/11] pwm: clps711x: Cast period to u32 before use as divisor Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-23 9:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-04-24 22:21 ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 05/11] pwm: pwm-imx-tpm: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 06/11] pwm: imx27: Use 64-bit division macro and function Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 07/11] pwm: sifive: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 08/11] pwm: sun4i: Use nsecs_to_jiffies to avoid a division Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-05-26 7:00 ` Lee Jones
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 10/11] clk: pwm: " Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22 2:57 ` [PATCH v13 11/11] pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-05-22 13:26 ` Uwe Kleine-König
[not found] ` <20200423114857.GG3612@dell>
[not found] ` <20200423215306.GA8670@codeaurora.org>
[not found] ` <20200424064303.GJ3612@dell>
[not found] ` <20200424221422.GA31118@codeaurora.org>
[not found] ` <20200427064434.GA3559@dell>
2020-05-20 23:15 ` [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM " Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-05-21 7:15 ` Lee Jones
2020-05-22 11:16 ` Thierry Reding
2020-05-22 11:31 ` Lee Jones
2020-05-22 12:50 ` Thierry Reding [this message]
2020-05-22 22:59 ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-05-26 6:59 ` Lee Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200522125028.GG2163848@ulmo \
--to=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=subbaram@codeaurora.org \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).