On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Maxime, > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 10:57:23AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 9:15 AM Uwe Kleine-König > > > > wrote: > > > > > Together with the patches that were applied later the topmost commit > > > > > from this series is c2807ecb5290 ("drm/omap: Convert to platform remove > > > > > callback returning void"). This commit was part for the following next > > > > > tags: > > > > > > > > > > $ git tag -l --contains c2807ecb5290 > > > > > next-20230609 > > > > > next-20230613 > > > > > next-20230614 > > > > > next-20230615 > > > > > > > > > > However in next-20230616 they are missing. In next-20230616 > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next was cf683e8870bd4be0fd6b98639286700a35088660. > > > > > Compared to c2807ecb5290 this adds 1149 patches but drops 37 (that are > > > > > also not included with a different commit id). The 37 patches dropped > > > > > are 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290: > > > > > > > > > > $ git shortlog -s 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290 > > > > > 1 Christophe JAILLET > > > > > 2 Jessica Zhang > > > > > 5 Karol Wachowski > > > > > 1 Laura Nao > > > > > 27 Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > 1 Wang Jianzheng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this was done by mistake because nobody told me about dropping > > > > > my/these patches? Can c2807ecb5290 please be merged into drm-misc-next > > > > > again? > > > > > > > > Actually, it was probably a mistake that these patches got merged to > > > > linuxnext during the 4 days that you noticed. However, your patches > > > > aren't dropped and are still present in drm-misc-next. > > > > > > > > drm-misc has a bit of a unique model and it's documented fairly well here: > > > > > > > > https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html > > > > > > Is there a flaw then in this unique model (or its implementation) when > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next moves in a non-fast-forward manner? This isn't > > > expected, is it? > > > > There's no expectation afaik. Any tree merged in linux-next can be > > rebased, drop a patch, amend one, etc. without any concern. > > I agree that there are no rules broken for a tree that is included in > next and a maintainer is free to rewrite their tree independant of the > tree being included in next. > > Still I think that shouldn't be used as an excuse. As an excuse for what? > For me, if a maintainer puts some patch into next that's a statement > saying (approximately) "I think this patch is fine and I intend to > send it to Linus during the next merge window.". I mean, that's what we're saying and doing? > So my expectation is that if a patch is dropped again from next, there > was a problem and it would be fair if the maintainer tells the > author/submitter about this problem and that the patch was dropped. But it wasn't dropped, it's still very much to be sent to Linus during the next merge window. > So my concern is not about rule breaking, but about the strange signal > that is sent to contributors by including their work in next for some > time and then dropping it again without comment. > > > It's also why linux-next is rebuilt entirely every day. > > > > > > The key is that committers can commit to drm-misc-next _at any time_ > > > > regardless of the merge window. The drm-misc merge strategy makes this > > > > OK. Specifically, when it's late in the linux cycle then drm-misc-next > > > > is supposed to stop merging to linuxnext. Then, shortly after the > > > > merge window closes, patches will start flowing again. > > > > > > > > So basically your patches are landed and should even keep the same git > > > > hashes when they eventually make it to Linux. They just won't land for > > > > another release cycle of Linux. > > > > > > OK, c2807ecb5290 is still included in drm-misc-next. So while I don't > > > understand the whole model, the patches at least seem to be scheduled to > > > go in during the next merge window. > > > > It's not that complicated. > > > > drm-misc-next is always open, and we start targeting release X + 2 when > > X-rc6 is released. > > > > This is due to Linus wanting all the commits sent as part of the PR in > > linux-next for two weeks. > > > > In order to converge towards (X + 1)-rc1 in linux-next, as soon as X-rc6 > > is released, we remove drm-misc-next from the linux-next branch. All the > > patches in drm-misc-next that were targetting X + 1 are in drm/next by > > then, so it's not a concern. > > So if I were a maintainer of drm-misc, I'd want that no commit from > drm-misc-next migrates to next after -rc6. > > Also note that the branch head in question (i.e. c2807ecb5290) was > included in next-20230609, while v6.4-rc6 was tagged on Jun 11. So > according to the rules you described c2807ecb5290 could have been > qualified to go into v6.5-rc1?! Yes, could have, but barely missed the last drm-misc-next PR we sent to Dave that usually occurs on Thursday (8/6) so Dave can merge it on Friday (9/6), the last working day before -rc6 was released. Maxime