[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Aleksandar Markovic
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:33:44 +0100

On Sunday, February 16, 2020, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
On 16/02/20 07:57, James Hogan wrote:
>> We are in the process of handling this within the company, and this
>> patch should go via MIPS tree, not trivial tree - will be updated when
>> the opinions are crystallized, and all consultations with others were
>> done. There is no rush.
> Hi Aleksandar,
> I respectfully disagree. In the mean time I am still listed as
> maintainer even though this patch has reflected reality for more than 18
> months since the 2018 closure of the MIPS UK offices.
> If "the company" wish to eventually crystalize their opinion and assign
> someone else this role (which they've had at least 6 weeks to do even
> since I sent the patch) they can always submit a new patch.
> In the mean time I'd appreciate if somebody could take the patch ASAP.

I agree with James, the situation has already crystallized long before
the opinions will have.  You have done excellent work on the TCG side,
but neither the kernel nor the QEMU side of KVM have seen any
significant activity.  If your employer becomes more interested in KVM
then the status can be changed.

I think it's okay if we delay the patch a couple weeks more (which is
more or less when Laurent or I will send the next pull request), but
certainly not past 5.0 soft freeze.

OK, I will add the patch in the next MIPS queue, since I think its significance is more than trivial. It will be sent no later than two weeks from now. I just wanted the patch to be in the same queue when we will provide replacement. But, honestly, if the factual state lasted that long, I don't see the reason for such sudden hurry, do you?

I do not act alone (as an independant person) in this community, I represent the company I am working for (in this case Wave, the owner of MIPS), and of course I need from time to time to consult other people, which takes some tome sometimes. Most of you are, I guess, in the same situation from time to time.

Of course I respect James' decision, although I am trully sorry about it. My only slight objection is that James should have sent this patch sooner, rather than just leave an impression that there is a maintainer, while in fact there wasn't. What did you wait? But, never mind, I understand your hesitation. The best outcome would be that James remained in that role (I do remember him as an excellent, thorough engineer, that is approachable and very helpful to others), but what can we do now. I wish we work together in future, who knows? Thanks, James, for taking care of KVM for MIPS for number of years!

Thanks to all too,



reply via email to

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