Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2021, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 09:48:59AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 6/3/21 9:38 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:43:36PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 15:52, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
> > >>>> directly.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Select a high priority of 192 to ensure that default restart handlers
> > >>>> are replaced if Xen is running.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>  arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > >>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>> This patch does appear to be useful.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is this just being solved in downstream trees at the moment?
> > >>>
> > >>> It would be nice if we could relinquish people of this burden and get it
> > >>> into Mainline finally.
> > >>>
> > >> There must have been half a dozen attempts to send this patch series
> > >> upstream. I have tried, and others have tried. Each attempt failed with
> > >> someone else objecting for non-technical reasons (such as "we need more
> > >> reviews") or no reaction at all, and maintainers just don't pick it up.
> > > Looking at the *-by tag list above, I think we have enough quality
> > > reviews to take this forward.
> > >
> > >> So, yes, this patch series can only be found in downstream trees,
> > >> and it seems pointless to submit it yet again.
> > > IMHO, it's unfair to burden multiple downstream trees with this purely
> > > due to poor or nervy maintainership.  Functionality as broadly useful
> > > as this should be merged and maintained in Mainline.
> > >
> > > OOI, who is blocking?  As I see it, we have 2 of the key maintainers
> > > in the *-by list.  With those on-board, it's difficult to envisage
> > > what the problem is.
> > 
> > 
> > Stefano (who is ARM Xen maintainer) left Citrix a while ago. He is at sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx (which I added to the CC line).
> 
> Stefano already reviewed this patch, which is part of a larger series
> that primarily touches 32-bit ARM code, but also touches 64-bit ARM
> code as well.
> 
> As I said in my previous reply, I don't see that there's any problem
> with getting these patches merged had the usual processes been
> followed - either ending up in the patch system, or the pull request
> being sent to me directly.
> 
> Sadly, the pull request was sent to the arm-soc people excluding me,
> I happened to notice it and requested to see the patches that were
> being asked to be pulled (since I probably couldn't find them)...
> and it then took two further weeks before the patches were posted,
> which I then missed amongst all the other email.
> 
> It's a process failure and unfortunate timing rather than anything
> malicious.

Understood.

Is there anything I can do to help this forward?

I can either collect and re-submit the patches to the MLs if that
makes people's lives any easier.  Or if one of the original submitters
wish to retain responsibility, I have no qualms with that either.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog