qdev & hw/core owner? (was Re: [PATCH v19 7/9] machine: add properties to compat_props incrementaly)

On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>>> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
>>>>>> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM
>>>>>> migration I've been taking care of via qom-next. Last time this came up
>>>>>> you didn't want anyone to be M: for qdev, so maybe we can use R: so that
>>>>>> at least people automatically get CC'ed and we avoid this recurring
>>>>>> discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I might have changed my mind on that.  You definitely should be M: for qdev.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paolo
>>>>
>>>> If Andreas wants to, that's also fine. Several maintainers are
>>>> better than one.
>>>
>>> *If* the maintainers are all willing and able to work together.
>>>
>>
>> No problem here from my point of view :)
>
> No problem to me, too. :)
>
> I am going to be away from work for 15 days starting on Tuesday
> Feb 16th. So if Marcel wants to start queueing patches already,
> please be my guest. I will be able to help on that after I'm
> back.
>

Hi,

If there are only a few patches on the mailing list, they can wait.
If the number will grow I'll send a pull request.

So the MAINTAINER file should look like this, right?

Regarding qdev, Andreas, I also think you are the most qualified
to take it, will you?

Thanks,
Marcel

Am 12.02.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum:
> On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>>>> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed
>>>>>>> Marcel
>>>>>>> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM
>>>>>>> migration I've been taking care of via qom-next. Last time this
>>>>>>> came up
>>>>>>> you didn't want anyone to be M: for qdev, so maybe we can use R:
>>>>>>> so that
>>>>>>> at least people automatically get CC'ed and we avoid this recurring
>>>>>>> discussion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might have changed my mind on that.  You definitely should be M:
>>>>>> for qdev.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paolo
>>>>>
>>>>> If Andreas wants to, that's also fine. Several maintainers are
>>>>> better than one.
>>>>
>>>> *If* the maintainers are all willing and able to work together.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No problem here from my point of view :)
>>
>> No problem to me, too. :)
>>
>> I am going to be away from work for 15 days starting on Tuesday
>> Feb 16th. So if Marcel wants to start queueing patches already,
>> please be my guest. I will be able to help on that after I'm
>> back.
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If there are only a few patches on the mailing list, they can wait.
> If the number will grow I'll send a pull request.
> 
> So the MAINTAINER file should look like this, right?
> 
> Regarding qdev, Andreas, I also think you are the most qualified
> to take it, will you?
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 2d6ee17..a86491a 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -1200,6 +1200,13 @@ F: docs/*qmp-*
>  F: scripts/qmp/
>  T: git git://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git qapi-next
> 
> +Machine
> +M: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> +M: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>
> +S: Supported
> +F: hw/core/machine.c
> +F: include/hw/boards.h
> +

Fine with me, ack.

For qdev.c itself I prefer not to create a misleading "QDev" section but
rather just proposed a first step to split up qdev.c not just into
common vs. system-only code but also in better maintainable subareas.
That's targeted at having a section like "Core device API" covering a
to-be-created device.c with myself plus some backup as maintainer, then
Igor/mst/whomever for "Device hotplug interface" or the like.
qdev-system.c we could consider to split up so that the block/net/char
specific parts can be assigned clear maintainers - haven't investigated
that part yet. In the meantime we could simply create multiple sections
covering different aspects of qdev* files.

Cheers,
Andreas

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:17:14AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> >>On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >>>"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >>>>>>You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel
> >>>>>>who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM
> >>>>>>migration I've been taking care of via qom-next. Last time this came up
> >>>>>>you didn't want anyone to be M: for qdev, so maybe we can use R: so that
> >>>>>>at least people automatically get CC'ed and we avoid this recurring
> >>>>>>discussion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I might have changed my mind on that.  You definitely should be M: for qdev.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Paolo
> >>>>
> >>>>If Andreas wants to, that's also fine. Several maintainers are
> >>>>better than one.
> >>>
> >>>*If* the maintainers are all willing and able to work together.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No problem here from my point of view :)
> >
> >No problem to me, too. :)
> >
> >I am going to be away from work for 15 days starting on Tuesday
> >Feb 16th. So if Marcel wants to start queueing patches already,
> >please be my guest. I will be able to help on that after I'm
> >back.
> >
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If there are only a few patches on the mailing list, they can wait.
> If the number will grow I'll send a pull request.
> 
> So the MAINTAINER file should look like this, right?
> 
> Regarding qdev, Andreas, I also think you are the most qualified
> to take it, will you?
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 2d6ee17..a86491a 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -1200,6 +1200,13 @@ F: docs/*qmp-*
>  F: scripts/qmp/
>  T: git git://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git qapi-next
> 
> +Machine

I believe it would be clearer if described as "Machine core", or
"Common machine code".

> +M: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> +M: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>
> +S: Supported
> +F: hw/core/machine.c
> +F: include/hw/boards.h
> +
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Marcel

Thanks!

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:22:41PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.02.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum:
> > On 02/11/2016 09:41 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> >>> On 02/05/2016 09:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >>>>>>> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed
> >>>>>>> Marcel
> >>>>>>> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM
> >>>>>>> migration I've been taking care of via qom-next. Last time this
> >>>>>>> came up
> >>>>>>> you didn't want anyone to be M: for qdev, so maybe we can use R:
> >>>>>>> so that
> >>>>>>> at least people automatically get CC'ed and we avoid this recurring
> >>>>>>> discussion?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I might have changed my mind on that.  You definitely should be M:
> >>>>>> for qdev.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Paolo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If Andreas wants to, that's also fine. Several maintainers are
> >>>>> better than one.
> >>>>
> >>>> *If* the maintainers are all willing and able to work together.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No problem here from my point of view :)
> >>
> >> No problem to me, too. :)
> >>
> >> I am going to be away from work for 15 days starting on Tuesday
> >> Feb 16th. So if Marcel wants to start queueing patches already,
> >> please be my guest. I will be able to help on that after I'm
> >> back.
> >>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > If there are only a few patches on the mailing list, they can wait.
> > If the number will grow I'll send a pull request.
> > 
> > So the MAINTAINER file should look like this, right?
> > 
> > Regarding qdev, Andreas, I also think you are the most qualified
> > to take it, will you?
> > 
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 2d6ee17..a86491a 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -1200,6 +1200,13 @@ F: docs/*qmp-*
> >  F: scripts/qmp/
> >  T: git git://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git qapi-next
> > 
> > +Machine
> > +M: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > +M: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>
> > +S: Supported
> > +F: hw/core/machine.c
> > +F: include/hw/boards.h
> > +
> 
> Fine with me, ack.
> 
> For qdev.c itself I prefer not to create a misleading "QDev" section but
> rather just proposed a first step to split up qdev.c not just into
> common vs. system-only code but also in better maintainable subareas.
> That's targeted at having a section like "Core device API" covering a
> to-be-created device.c with myself plus some backup as maintainer, then
> Igor/mst/whomever for "Device hotplug interface" or the like.
> qdev-system.c we could consider to split up so that the block/net/char
> specific parts can be assigned clear maintainers - haven't investigated
> that part yet. In the meantime we could simply create multiple sections
> covering different aspects of qdev* files.

Related question: is it OK to have files appearing in multiple
sections? It would be useful for qdev*.c and vl.c. I would like
to be CCed in any vl.c patch affecting machine initialization,
for example.

On 12/02/2016 19:17, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Related question: is it OK to have files appearing in multiple
> sections? It would be useful for qdev*.c and vl.c. I would like
> to be CCed in any vl.c patch affecting machine initialization,
> for example.

Sure it is.

Paolo