[tip:efi/core] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
Commit-ID: 81b60dbff04980a45b348c5b5eeca2713d4594ca Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/81b60dbff04980a45b348c5b5eeca2713d4594ca Author: Matt Fleming AuthorDate: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:44:17 + Committer: Ingo Molnar CommitDate: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:03:18 +0100 MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. Also add Ard Biesheuvel as the EFI test driver and efivarfs maintainer. Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming Cc: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Ivan Hu Cc: Jeremy Kerr Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Matthew Garrett Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180103094417.6353-1-m...@codeblueprint.co.uk Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- MAINTAINERS | 7 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index b46c9ce..95c3fa1 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -5149,15 +5149,15 @@ F: sound/usb/misc/ua101.c EFI TEST DRIVER L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org M: Ivan Hu -M: Matt Fleming +M: Ard Biesheuvel S: Maintained F: drivers/firmware/efi/test/ EFI VARIABLE FILESYSTEM M: Matthew Garrett M: Jeremy Kerr -M: Matt Fleming -T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git +M: Ard Biesheuvel +T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained F: fs/efivarfs/ @@ -5318,7 +5318,6 @@ S:Supported F: security/integrity/evm/ EXTENSIBLE FIRMWARE INTERFACE (EFI) -M: Matt Fleming M: Ard Biesheuvel L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
* Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 3 January 2018 at 12:50, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Matt Fleming wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 03 Jan, at 10:13:55AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> > On 3 January 2018 at 09:44, Matt Fleming > >> > wrote: > >> > > Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks > >> > > as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming > >> > > >> > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel > >> > > >> > Thanks Matt > >> > > >> > > --- > >> > > MAINTAINERS | 5 + > >> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > Ard, if you want to add yourself as co-maintainer of the EFI test > >> > > driver or efivarfs, please go ahead. I'm sure no one would object. > >> > > > >> > > >> > I guess that makes sense. Should we just fold that in? > >> > >> Sounds good to me. > > > > If any of you sends me a delta patch or an updated patch I'll apply the > > folded > > version. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ingo > > > Done. Thanks guys, applied to tip:efi/urgent, together with the two pending EFI fixes. Ingo
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
On 3 January 2018 at 12:50, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Matt Fleming wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Jan, at 10:13:55AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > On 3 January 2018 at 09:44, Matt Fleming wrote: >> > > Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks >> > > as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming >> > >> > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel >> > >> > Thanks Matt >> > >> > > --- >> > > MAINTAINERS | 5 + >> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > Ard, if you want to add yourself as co-maintainer of the EFI test >> > > driver or efivarfs, please go ahead. I'm sure no one would object. >> > > >> > >> > I guess that makes sense. Should we just fold that in? >> >> Sounds good to me. > > If any of you sends me a delta patch or an updated patch I'll apply the folded > version. > > Thanks, > > Ingo Done.
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
* Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 03 Jan, at 10:13:55AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 3 January 2018 at 09:44, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks > > > as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming > > > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > Thanks Matt > > > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > Ard, if you want to add yourself as co-maintainer of the EFI test > > > driver or efivarfs, please go ahead. I'm sure no one would object. > > > > > > > I guess that makes sense. Should we just fold that in? > > Sounds good to me. If any of you sends me a delta patch or an updated patch I'll apply the folded version. Thanks, Ingo
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
On Wed, 03 Jan, at 10:13:55AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 3 January 2018 at 09:44, Matt Fleming wrote: > > Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks > > as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > Thanks Matt > > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 5 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > Ard, if you want to add yourself as co-maintainer of the EFI test > > driver or efivarfs, please go ahead. I'm sure no one would object. > > > > I guess that makes sense. Should we just fold that in? Sounds good to me.
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
On 3 January 2018 at 09:44, Matt Fleming wrote: > Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks > as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel Thanks Matt > --- > MAINTAINERS | 5 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Ard, if you want to add yourself as co-maintainer of the EFI test > driver or efivarfs, please go ahead. I'm sure no one would object. > I guess that makes sense. Should we just fold that in? > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index d4fdcb12616c..9a41aa072e6a 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -5150,15 +5150,13 @@ F: sound/usb/misc/ua101.c > EFI TEST DRIVER > L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > M: Ivan Hu > -M: Matt Fleming > S: Maintained > F: drivers/firmware/efi/test/ > > EFI VARIABLE FILESYSTEM > M: Matthew Garrett > M: Jeremy Kerr > -M: Matt Fleming > -T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git > +T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git > L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > S: Maintained > F: fs/efivarfs/ > @@ -5319,7 +5317,6 @@ S:Supported > F: security/integrity/evm/ > > EXTENSIBLE FIRMWARE INTERFACE (EFI) > -M: Matt Fleming > M: Ard Biesheuvel > L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git > -- > 2.14.2 >
[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove Matt Fleming as EFI co-maintainer
Instate Ard Biesheuvel as the sole EFI maintainer and leave other folks as maintainers for the EFI test driver and efivarfs file system. Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming --- MAINTAINERS | 5 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) Ard, if you want to add yourself as co-maintainer of the EFI test driver or efivarfs, please go ahead. I'm sure no one would object. diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index d4fdcb12616c..9a41aa072e6a 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -5150,15 +5150,13 @@ F: sound/usb/misc/ua101.c EFI TEST DRIVER L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org M: Ivan Hu -M: Matt Fleming S: Maintained F: drivers/firmware/efi/test/ EFI VARIABLE FILESYSTEM M: Matthew Garrett M: Jeremy Kerr -M: Matt Fleming -T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git +T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org S: Maintained F: fs/efivarfs/ @@ -5319,7 +5317,6 @@ S:Supported F: security/integrity/evm/ EXTENSIBLE FIRMWARE INTERFACE (EFI) -M: Matt Fleming M: Ard Biesheuvel L: linux-...@vger.kernel.org T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git -- 2.14.2
Re: EFI co-maintainer
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:34:02AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep, at 07:59:51PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > Just curious, are there any plans to integrate the new repo into > > linux-next? It would be great to have testing as early as possible. > > Yes, the existing one is also part of linux-next once it gets merged > into tip. The issue has been that I didn't send pull requests to tip > frequently enough for that to happen on a regular basis. > > Ard has already mentioned that he'd like to see that change. Excellent, thank you. > > Also, if this isn't too much trouble, would it be possible to merge > > urgent into next when patches are added in the future? When I tested > > my patches during this release cycle, I tried to pull in everything > > from efi/urgent + efi/next into my development branch but hit some > > non-trivial merge conflicts in portions of the EFI code I wasn't > > familiar with. And ISTR that efi/next was based on 4.7, not 4.8-rc. > > In the end I just rebased my patches on efi/next, but felt a bit uneasy > > as I wasn't testing what the code would eventually look like. > > This is a fair request. The only reason this hasn't happened in the > past is that no one has ever asked for it to happen regularly. > > 'next' and 'urgent' are intended to be topic branches, and they're > based on tags that align with their purpose - 'next' is new features > and needs a stable base and lots of testing time, whereas 'urgent' is > critical bug fixes and so needs to be based on the latest -rc. > > While I don't think it makes sense to merge those branches together, > using the 'master' branch as the place with all the changes plus the > merge resolutions sounds fine to me. This is similar to how the tip > repository is structured. > > Would that work? Yes, sure thing. And if efi/master is part of linux-next, you'll automatically get testing for 'urgent' patches as well and thus a bit of extra confidence before the merge into tip a few days later. Just to provide an additional data point, the i915 folks have a drm-intel-next branch and a drm-intel-fixes branch, the latter mostly just cherry-picks from the former. Plus there's drm-intel-nightly which merges everything together (drm-intel + drm-misc branches, Dave Airlie's drm-next, sound etc) and which my own development branch is also based on. Some people run drm-intel-nightly all the time, plus the linux-next coverage this adds up to a considerable safety net. So the 'master' branch you've mentioned would sort of be the equivalent to drm-intel-nightly. Yeah, that would definitely work. Best regards, Lukas
Re: EFI co-maintainer
On 22 September 2016 at 09:34, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep, at 07:59:51PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: >> >> That is great to hear, thanks a lot from me as well. >> >> Just curious, are there any plans to integrate the new repo into >> linux-next? It would be great to have testing as early as possible. > > Yes, the existing one is also part of linux-next once it gets merged > into tip. The issue has been that I didn't send pull requests to tip > frequently enough for that to happen on a regular basis. > > Ard has already mentioned that he'd like to see that change. > Well, given the recent developments, where architecture support for arm64 and ARM is essentially in maintenance mode, and new development is mainly focused on generic EFI features living under drivers/firmware/efi, it might make sense to stop feeding through tip, but go directly to Linus (and to -next) Going straight to -next, but going through tip for actual merging introduces a disparity that is outside of our control, i.e., patches sometimes get 'fixed' en route (although, to be fair, this is usually only commit log or other textual fixes in comments etc), but since it is our responsibility as EFI maintainers to ensure that what is in -next is what gets sent to Linus in the merge request, I think we shouldn't have one without the other. >> Also, if this isn't too much trouble, would it be possible to merge >> urgent into next when patches are added in the future? When I tested >> my patches during this release cycle, I tried to pull in everything >> from efi/urgent + efi/next into my development branch but hit some >> non-trivial merge conflicts in portions of the EFI code I wasn't >> familiar with. And ISTR that efi/next was based on 4.7, not 4.8-rc. >> In the end I just rebased my patches on efi/next, but felt a bit uneasy >> as I wasn't testing what the code would eventually look like. > > This is a fair request. The only reason this hasn't happened in the > past is that no one has ever asked for it to happen regularly. > > 'next' and 'urgent' are intended to be topic branches, and they're > based on tags that align with their purpose - 'next' is new features > and needs a stable base and lots of testing time, whereas 'urgent' is > critical bug fixes and so needs to be based on the latest -rc. > > While I don't think it makes sense to merge those branches together, > using the 'master' branch as the place with all the changes plus the > merge resolutions sounds fine to me. This is similar to how the tip > repository is structured. > > Would that work? Works for me.
Re: EFI co-maintainer
On Wed, 21 Sep, at 07:59:51PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > That is great to hear, thanks a lot from me as well. > > Just curious, are there any plans to integrate the new repo into > linux-next? It would be great to have testing as early as possible. Yes, the existing one is also part of linux-next once it gets merged into tip. The issue has been that I didn't send pull requests to tip frequently enough for that to happen on a regular basis. Ard has already mentioned that he'd like to see that change. > Also, if this isn't too much trouble, would it be possible to merge > urgent into next when patches are added in the future? When I tested > my patches during this release cycle, I tried to pull in everything > from efi/urgent + efi/next into my development branch but hit some > non-trivial merge conflicts in portions of the EFI code I wasn't > familiar with. And ISTR that efi/next was based on 4.7, not 4.8-rc. > In the end I just rebased my patches on efi/next, but felt a bit uneasy > as I wasn't testing what the code would eventually look like. This is a fair request. The only reason this hasn't happened in the past is that no one has ever asked for it to happen regularly. 'next' and 'urgent' are intended to be topic branches, and they're based on tags that align with their purpose - 'next' is new features and needs a stable base and lots of testing time, whereas 'urgent' is critical bug fixes and so needs to be based on the latest -rc. While I don't think it makes sense to merge those branches together, using the 'master' branch as the place with all the changes plus the merge resolutions sounds fine to me. This is similar to how the tip repository is structured. Would that work?
Re: EFI co-maintainer
Hi Matt, Hi Ard, On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:09:12PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > I've asked, and Ard has agreed to step up and help me co-maintain the > EFI subsystem. > > Given that there are now two maintainers, we're moving to a shared git > repository on kernel.org, hosted at, > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git > > Expect a MAINTAINERS patch soon. > > I do plan on keeping the existing tree in sync for the time being, so > it won't actually matter which repository people base their patches > on. Hopefully the disruption to patch submitters will be minimal. > > Thanks again Ard! That is great to hear, thanks a lot from me as well. Just curious, are there any plans to integrate the new repo into linux-next? It would be great to have testing as early as possible. Also, if this isn't too much trouble, would it be possible to merge urgent into next when patches are added in the future? When I tested my patches during this release cycle, I tried to pull in everything from efi/urgent + efi/next into my development branch but hit some non-trivial merge conflicts in portions of the EFI code I wasn't familiar with. And ISTR that efi/next was based on 4.7, not 4.8-rc. In the end I just rebased my patches on efi/next, but felt a bit uneasy as I wasn't testing what the code would eventually look like. Thanks again, Lukas
Re: EFI co-maintainer
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > Folks, > > I've asked, and Ard has agreed to step up and help me co-maintain the > EFI subsystem. > > Given that there are now two maintainers, we're moving to a shared git > repository on kernel.org, hosted at, > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git > > Expect a MAINTAINERS patch soon. > > I do plan on keeping the existing tree in sync for the time being, so > it won't actually matter which repository people base their patches > on. Hopefully the disruption to patch submitters will be minimal. > > Thanks again Ard! Brilliant! That is excellent news. g.
EFI co-maintainer
Folks, I've asked, and Ard has agreed to step up and help me co-maintain the EFI subsystem. Given that there are now two maintainers, we're moving to a shared git repository on kernel.org, hosted at, git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git Expect a MAINTAINERS patch soon. I do plan on keeping the existing tree in sync for the time being, so it won't actually matter which repository people base their patches on. Hopefully the disruption to patch submitters will be minimal. Thanks again Ard!
