On 2014/5/7 10:45, Li Zefan wrote: > On 2014/5/6 20:19, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> On 2014/5/6 19:15, sanil kumar wrote: >>> On 5/6/2014 4:37 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>> On 2014/5/6 17:29, maobibo 00177601 wrote: >>>>> Hi Tianhong, >>>>> >>>>> I have two questions about the HULK >>>>> 1) When we get kernel from HULK such as euler-arm64branch, if there >>>>> are some bugs in the branch and we report this bug, >>>>> will CSI team be responsible to fix the bug? >>>> >>>> If the bug is exist in the kernel and not from third-party application >>>> just like Customer's own drivers, I have to say "YES", we >>>> will fix them and upstream them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) When we submit a patch to HULK and if it is accepted, will CSI team >>>>> be response to push it to upstream mainline branch? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If this patch is developed by yourself, and only for features or >>>> capabilities, you have to upstream the patch yourself. >>> If we don't have strategy to handle this, we may end up facing issues with >>> long term maintenance of HULK. Do you see this risk? >>> This can be applicable to any patches whether its coming from external or >>> internal members of CSI. >> >> Hi sanil: >> >> Yes, I got your opinion, and we already face this problem several times, in >> principle everyone should be responsible for their own code, >> I hope every patch in our HULK repository could be applied to linux mainline >> tree, the CSI should help them to make the code more in line >> with the community standard, it is a relationship, not a obligations. >> >> So I think we should discuss the strategy together, In my opinion, there is >> no external or internal members of CSI, everyone is a >> kernel developer, if the code or patch has a good reason to upstream to the >> linux mainline tree, the author should have responsibility to handle >> this work, if the author met some problem and could not handle this alone, >> our HULK team should help him to upstream, this is a great team should do. >> >> Hi zefan: >> As a senior expert, can you give us more suggestion to handle this, thanks. >> > > As I'm not working on arm64, I don't know how you guys have been > co-operating. :) > > Can't we learn from the development process of LSK? > > How about we obey a rule "upstream first". Patches are sent to our internal > mailing > list for review, and then they should be sent to the community. They won't be > accepted > by HULK util they are merged into mainline, or you have to explain why they > aren't > accepted and why it's ok for HULK to merge them though. > > The principal is we should all work on upstreaming our code. We can't ask > HULK to > do all the upstream work. > > The community doesn't like delegation, which means it should be the author > that submits > the patch. However this is not a strict requirement. If you can fully > understand the > patch and you're able to answer people's comments on this patch when it's > posted, you > may submit it given you've got the autoher's approval. >
Hi zefan: Thanks for your suggestion, I think it is more clear and reasonable, if we need deeper discussion, the branch maintainer for CHI and Hisilicon need to enter this discussion. Hi guozhu, wangwei: I need to know the branch maintainer for your department, please tell me the name and then I could discussion with them for the strategy and perfect the HULK document, thanks for any suggestion. Regards Ding > btw what does CSI mean? > Central Software Institute :) > > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
