linux-api scope (Re: [PATCH v2 11/22] media: dvb-frontend invoke enable/disable_source handlers)

linux-api scope (Re: [PATCH v2 11/22] media: dvb-frontend invoke enable/disable_source handlers)

[Andy Lutomirski]

[cc list heavily trimmed]

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> Change dvb frontend to check if tuner is free when
> device opened in RW mode. Call to enable_source
> handler either returns with an active pipeline to
> tuner or error if tuner is busy. Tuner is released
> when frontend is released calling the disable_source
> handler.

As an actual subscriber to linux-api, I prefer for the linux-api list
to be lowish-volume and mostly limited to API-related things.  Is this
API related?  Do people think that these series should be sent to
linux-api?

Thanks,
Andy

Re: linux-api scope (Re: [PATCH v2 11/22] media: dvb-frontend invoke enable/disable_source handlers)

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

[expanding the CC a little]

Hi Andy, (and Shuah)

On 4 February 2016 at 05:51, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> [cc list heavily trimmed]
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> Change dvb frontend to check if tuner is free when
>> device opened in RW mode. Call to enable_source
>> handler either returns with an active pipeline to
>> tuner or error if tuner is busy. Tuner is released
>> when frontend is released calling the disable_source
>> handler.
>
> As an actual subscriber to linux-api, I prefer for the linux-api list
> to be lowish-volume and mostly limited to API-related things.  Is this
> API related?  Do people think that these series should be sent to
> linux-api?

I think not, and I'd like to stem the flood of mail to the list.
There's two things that we could do:

1. Shuah, I know we talked about this in the past, and it made some
sense to me at the time for kselftest to use linux-api@, but maybe
it's time to create a dedicated list, and move the traffic there? It'd
help focus the traffic of linux-api more on its original purpose.

2. However, I think the bigger cause of the flood is the change made
to MAINTAINERS by Josh's commit
ea8f8fc8631d9f890580a94d57a18bfeb827fa2e:

+ABI/API
+L:     linux-api@vger.kernel.org
+F:     Documentation/ABI/
+F:     include/linux/syscalls.h
+F:     include/uapi/
+F:     kernel/sys_ni.c

The change was well-intentioned (I Acked it), but folk run
scripts/get-maintainers.pl without thinking too much about its output
and add all of the resulting lists and CCs to their patch submissions.
This means we get a lot of useless noise relating to drivers and
unrelated Documentation changes, and actually miss some of the really
important changes (e.g., extensions of system calls; and new /proc
entries tend to get lost in the noise). Furthermore, people doing
things such as adding new system calls often don't tun
scripts/get-maintainers.pl it seems. Certainly, I have to often enough
remind peple to CC linux-api when adding new system calls.

I'll craft a patch to trim the MAINTAINERS entry.

Cheers,

Michael




> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

Re: linux-api scope (Re: [PATCH v2 11/22] media: dvb-frontend invoke enable/disable_source handlers)

[Shuah Khan]

On 02/04/2016 07:04 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [expanding the CC a little]
> 
> Hi Andy, (and Shuah)
> 
> On 4 February 2016 at 05:51, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>> [cc list heavily trimmed]
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>> Change dvb frontend to check if tuner is free when
>>> device opened in RW mode. Call to enable_source
>>> handler either returns with an active pipeline to
>>> tuner or error if tuner is busy. Tuner is released
>>> when frontend is released calling the disable_source
>>> handler.
>>
>> As an actual subscriber to linux-api, I prefer for the linux-api list
>> to be lowish-volume and mostly limited to API-related things.  Is this
>> API related?  Do people think that these series should be sent to
>> linux-api?
> 
> I think not, and I'd like to stem the flood of mail to the list.
> There's two things that we could do:

I simply followed the getmaintainers generate3d list.
A bit surprised to see linux-api, but didn't want to
leave it out.

> 
> 1. Shuah, I know we talked about this in the past, and it made some
> sense to me at the time for kselftest to use linux-api@, but maybe
> it's time to create a dedicated list, and move the traffic there? It'd
> help focus the traffic of linux-api more on its original purpose.

Yes that is a good plan - I will request a new mailing list and
send in a patch to Kselftest MAINTIANER's entry.

> 
> 2. However, I think the bigger cause of the flood is the change made
> to MAINTAINERS by Josh's commit
> ea8f8fc8631d9f890580a94d57a18bfeb827fa2e:
> 
> +ABI/API
> +L:     linux-api@vger.kernel.org
> +F:     Documentation/ABI/
> +F:     include/linux/syscalls.h
> +F:     include/uapi/
> +F:     kernel/sys_ni.c
> 
> The change was well-intentioned (I Acked it), but folk run
> scripts/get-maintainers.pl without thinking too much about its output
> and add all of the resulting lists and CCs to their patch submissions.
> This means we get a lot of useless noise relating to drivers and
> unrelated Documentation changes, and actually miss some of the really
> important changes (e.g., extensions of system calls; and new /proc
> entries tend to get lost in the noise). Furthermore, people doing
> things such as adding new system calls often don't tun
> scripts/get-maintainers.pl it seems. Certainly, I have to often enough
> remind peple to CC linux-api when adding new system calls.
> 
> I'll craft a patch to trim the MAINTAINERS entry.
> 

Thanks for doing this,
-- Shuah



-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Re: linux-api scope (Re: [PATCH v2 11/22] media: dvb-frontend invoke enable/disable_source handlers)

[Shuah Khan]

On 02/04/2016 07:04 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [expanding the CC a little]
> 
> Hi Andy, (and Shuah)
> 
> On 4 February 2016 at 05:51, Andy Lutomirski <luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> [cc list heavily trimmed]
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> Change dvb frontend to check if tuner is free when
>>> device opened in RW mode. Call to enable_source
>>> handler either returns with an active pipeline to
>>> tuner or error if tuner is busy. Tuner is released
>>> when frontend is released calling the disable_source
>>> handler.
>>
>> As an actual subscriber to linux-api, I prefer for the linux-api list
>> to be lowish-volume and mostly limited to API-related things.  Is this
>> API related?  Do people think that these series should be sent to
>> linux-api?
> 
> I think not, and I'd like to stem the flood of mail to the list.
> There's two things that we could do:

I simply followed the getmaintainers generate3d list.
A bit surprised to see linux-api, but didn't want to
leave it out.

> 
> 1. Shuah, I know we talked about this in the past, and it made some
> sense to me at the time for kselftest to use linux-api@, but maybe
> it's time to create a dedicated list, and move the traffic there? It'd
> help focus the traffic of linux-api more on its original purpose.

Yes that is a good plan - I will request a new mailing list and
send in a patch to Kselftest MAINTIANER's entry.

> 
> 2. However, I think the bigger cause of the flood is the change made
> to MAINTAINERS by Josh's commit
> ea8f8fc8631d9f890580a94d57a18bfeb827fa2e:
> 
> +ABI/API
> +L:     linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> +F:     Documentation/ABI/
> +F:     include/linux/syscalls.h
> +F:     include/uapi/
> +F:     kernel/sys_ni.c
> 
> The change was well-intentioned (I Acked it), but folk run
> scripts/get-maintainers.pl without thinking too much about its output
> and add all of the resulting lists and CCs to their patch submissions.
> This means we get a lot of useless noise relating to drivers and
> unrelated Documentation changes, and actually miss some of the really
> important changes (e.g., extensions of system calls; and new /proc
> entries tend to get lost in the noise). Furthermore, people doing
> things such as adding new system calls often don't tun
> scripts/get-maintainers.pl it seems. Certainly, I have to often enough
> remind peple to CC linux-api when adding new system calls.
> 
> I'll craft a patch to trim the MAINTAINERS entry.
> 

Thanks for doing this,
-- Shuah



-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org | (970) 217-8978

Re: linux-api scope (Re: [PATCH v2 11/22] media: dvb-frontend invoke enable/disable_source handlers)

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

Hi Shuah,

On 4 February 2016 at 15:35, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On 02/04/2016 07:04 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> [expanding the CC a little]
>>
>> Hi Andy, (and Shuah)
>>
>> On 4 February 2016 at 05:51, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> [cc list heavily trimmed]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> Change dvb frontend to check if tuner is free when
>>>> device opened in RW mode. Call to enable_source
>>>> handler either returns with an active pipeline to
>>>> tuner or error if tuner is busy. Tuner is released
>>>> when frontend is released calling the disable_source
>>>> handler.
>>>
>>> As an actual subscriber to linux-api, I prefer for the linux-api list
>>> to be lowish-volume and mostly limited to API-related things.  Is this
>>> API related?  Do people think that these series should be sent to
>>> linux-api?
>>
>> I think not, and I'd like to stem the flood of mail to the list.
>> There's two things that we could do:
>
> I simply followed the getmaintainers generate3d list.
> A bit surprised to see linux-api, but didn't want to
> leave it out.

Yep -- you and many others. That's the problem with automated solutions ;-).

>> 1. Shuah, I know we talked about this in the past, and it made some
>> sense to me at the time for kselftest to use linux-api@, but maybe
>> it's time to create a dedicated list, and move the traffic there? It'd
>> help focus the traffic of linux-api more on its original purpose.
>
> Yes that is a good plan - I will request a new mailing list and
> send in a patch to Kselftest MAINTIANER's entry.

Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. I guess a prominent mail onto
linux-api@ advertising the new list, once it has been created, would
not go amiss.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/