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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [cc list heavily trimmed]
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> +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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 217-8978