<p dir="ltr">I am fine with that as well. </p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Zhenyu Wang <<a href="mailto:zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com">zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com</a>> 于 2025年1月11日周六 上午7:26写道:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:49:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:<br>
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025, Rodrigo Vivi <<a href="mailto:rodrigo.vivi@intel.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rodrigo.vivi@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 04:30:20PM +0900, Zhenyu Wang wrote:<br>
> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 12:25:09AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:<br>
> >> > Note: <a href="mailto:zhenyuw@linux.intel.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">zhenyuw@linux.intel.com</a>'s address bounces:<br>
> >> > <br>
> >> <br>
> >> yeah, I've left Intel so can't use that box any more, looks Rodrigo hasn't<br>
> >> queue up my address change patch yet. Rodrigo?<br>
> ><br>
> > pushed to drm-intel-next now, although I was assuming this to come<br>
> > on a gvt pull request...<br>
> ><br>
> > what about this patch here? coming in a PR or should I take this<br>
> > directly at drm-intel-next as well?<br>
> <br>
> AFAICT the last gvt-next pull request was more than two years ago and<br>
> gvt-fixes slightly less than one year ago.<br>
> <br>
> There's a single cleanup commit in gvt-next applied two years ago for<br>
> which there hasn't been a pull request.<br>
> <br>
> The GVT github page [1] says, "This repository has been archived by the<br>
> owner on Oct 3, 2024. It is now read-only." The intel-gvt-dev mailing<br>
> list [2] appears to be mostly spam.<br>
> <br>
> Seems to me something like this would be appropriate:<br>
> <br>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS<br>
> index 1c3eab5d2b1a..161206fdaf05 100644<br>
> --- a/MAINTAINERS<br>
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS<br>
> @@ -11557,11 +11557,10 @@ F: drivers/gpio/gpio-tangier.h<br>
> INTEL GVT-g DRIVERS (Intel GPU Virtualization)<br>
> M: Zhenyu Wang <<a href="mailto:zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com</a>><br>
> M: Zhi Wang <<a href="mailto:zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com</a>><br>
> -L: <a href="mailto:intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br>
> L: <a href="mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br>
> -S: Supported<br>
> +S: Maintained<br>
> W: <a href="https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/wiki" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/wiki</a><br>
> -T: git <a href="https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git</a><br>
> +T: git <a href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel.git" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel.git</a><br>
> F: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/<br>
><br>
<br>
Looks fine with me.<br>
<br>
Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <<a href="mailto:zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">zhenyuw.linux@gmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
> INTEL HID EVENT DRIVER<br>
> <br>
> But I don't think it would be far from the truth to have "S: Odd Fixes"<br>
> either. And the extreme would be to just remove the whole maintainers<br>
> entry and have it fall back to the i915 entry.<br>
> <br>
> Thoughts?<br>
><br>
<br>
When I left Intel, I have raised similar question to manager or related<br>
people to see their ideas on how to keep GVT-g maintenance work for upstream,<br>
but I didn't get real answers before my last day at Intel...So still cc some<br>
intel gvt related people to double confirm.<br>
<br>
For me, it's fine to remove the maintainer entry maybe only keep as reviewer?<br>
<br>
Thanks to raise up this issue, Jani! <br>
</blockquote></div>