Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:51:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Toke =?UTF-8?B?SMO4aWxhbmQtSsO4cmdlbnNlbg==?= <toke@kernel.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Closing down the wireless trees for a summer break?
Message-ID: <20230613195136.6815df9b@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ba933d6e3d360298e400196371e37735aef3b1eb.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <87y1kncuh4.fsf@kernel.org>
        <871qifxm9b.fsf@toke.dk>
        <20230613112834.7df36e95@kernel.org>
        <ba933d6e3d360298e400196371e37735aef3b1eb.camel@sipsolutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 22:00:35 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 11:28 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:14:40 +0200 Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wro=
te: =20
> > > I think this sounds reasonable, and I applaud the effort to take some
> > > time off during the summer :)
> > >=20
> > > One question that comes to mind is how would this work for patchwork?
> > > Would we keep using the wireless patchwork instance for the patches
> > > going to -net in that period, or will there be some other process for
> > > this? I realise the setup we have for ath9k is a bit special in this
> > > regard with the ack-on-list+delegation, so I'm obviously mostly
> > > interested in what to do about that... :) =20
> >=20
> > Whatever's easiest :) It's probably a good idea for Kalle to write
> > down all the local rules and customs and share those with us.
>=20
> While that's probably a good idea regardless, I'd think that patchwork
> doesn't really matter that much - we'll have some catching up to do
> anyway after the vacations, so looking through patchwork etc. would be
> perfectly acceptable. Worst case we'd notice when a patch doesn't apply,
> right? :)

Right, I meant it more in terms of patch flow. Is looking at which
drivers have a tree specified in MAINTAINERS enough to know what
should be applied directly?

> Wrt. ath9k patches I guess "delegate in patchwork" won't work anymore,
> but "resend to netdev" or something perhaps?

We can watch PW state and apply from linux-wireless, I reckon.
That said I don't know how you use delegation :)