Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756579Ab1BXV37 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:29:59 -0500 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:35856 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756187Ab1BXV35 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:29:57 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6267"; a="76507277" Message-ID: <4D66CDD4.7080103@codeaurora.org> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:29:56 -0800 From: Bryan Huntsman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Walker CC: Linus Torvalds , David Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers References: <1298419415-3973-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <1298420395.17118.6.camel@m0nster> <4D657B69.4000107@codeaurora.org> <1298512932.17118.16.camel@m0nster> In-Reply-To: <1298512932.17118.16.camel@m0nster> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4036 Lines: 71 On 02/23/2011 06:02 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David > can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't > mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community. > > Daniel I'd like to address the points you mention. I disagree with your personal feelings about David's suitability for the task. David has been involved with Linux MSM development for it's entire history. This is important because he knows the HW behavior and SW designs for all the MSM chips and drivers. This gives him the context to recognize potentially subtle interactions and behavioral issues. I hope you would agree that this type of expertise and insight is valuable for any maintainer to have. Regarding his ability to do this on his own, public maintainership of the MSM architecture is David's primary responsibility. I agree that this is a somewhat new role for him, but maintainers have to start somewhere. From what I've seen so far, David is showing the proper maturity and judgement expected from a maintainer. As an example, I would point to David's handling of Arnd's comments in this thread; https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/16/434. This caused a considerable amount re-work and testing for us but David made sure that it was addressed and resolved correctly and in a timely manner. For your second point, would you please explain how we're "messing with your targets"? I understand that you have a personal interest in getting G1 and NexusOne support into the kernel. This is a great goal and I would encourage you to continue with this effort. We're happy to accept any patches you submit in this regard. Additionally, I think you would provide value to the MSM maintainer and the community by testing patches on these targets once there is support for them in the kernel. However, I would like to point out that the MSM architecture includes much more that just G1 or NexusOne. By my last last count, there were about 47 MSM machines registered. For your last point, would you please explain why it falls to you to "make sure ... that we do the right thing by the community"? We are trying very hard to become good citizens in the Linux kernel development community. This is not always an easy thing to do. The issues with SOC vendors are well known. I think the fact that one of our key MSM developers, David Brown, has stepped up to handle public maintainership of the MSM architecture, as well as the fact that many of our developers are now submitting patches upstream, demonstrates that we are trying to do the right thing. I'm sure there are lots of areas where we could improve and many things we could do better. This is a learning process for many of us. If you have specific examples of things that should be fixed or could be done better, please let us know. That kind of feedback is why we're participating and sending patches out for public review in the first place. If you have specific examples of us doing wrong by the community please share those as well. To my knowledge, no such issues have been raised by anyone in the community so far. Finally, it's my hope that you and Linux community will help and support David as the MSM maintainer by reviewing MSM-related patches and pointing out areas where the MSM architecture could be improved. In this spirit, I'm asking you to please acknowledge the patch that started this email chain. Please let the MSM developers take full responsibility for the MSM architecture. That is, after all, what the community typically asks from SOC vendors. Thanks. - Bryan -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/