[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [for-5.0 PATCH 00/11] Support for reverse debugging with GDB

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [for-5.0 PATCH 00/11] Support for reverse debugging with GDB
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:47:52 +0000

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:27, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 13.01.2020 um 11:14 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:07, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > In MAINTAINERS, you are listed yourself as the maintainer for
> > > record/replay. I wonder whether you shouldn't just be sending pull
> > > requests after getting Acked-by or Reviewed-by from the maintainers of
> > > other subsystems you touch.
> >
> > Ideally somebody else should be interested enough in record/replay
> > to review patches. "I'm a subsystem maintainer and send pull
> > requests" ideally shouldn't be something we give out just because
> > patches aren't getting code review, though I know that it
> > does sometimes degenerate into that...
> I had the impression that he said he had collected (almost) all of the
> necessary reviews, but nobody really seems to be interested to take the
> series through their tree because no matter who you ask, the majority of
> changes will always be for other subsystems.

No, the series has only got acked-bys so far, except for the one patch
that touches qapi, which Markus reviewed. (The bulk of the changes
here are in replay/, and so far nobody's looked at those AFAIK.)

> And as record/replay is already listed as a separate subsystem in
> MAINTAINERS, it seems to make sense to me that it also gets its own pull
> requests rather than trying to get patches merged though the trees of
> various subsystem maintainers who all aren't really responsible for it.

Yeah, pull requests would be fine. Pull requests of whole
patchsets that are basically unreviewed are something I think
we should try to avoid if we can.

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]